V- \rA.~ 



THE RELATION OF QUICKNESS OF 
LEARNING TO RETENTIVENESS 



BY 

DARWIlSr OLIVER LYON, A. M. 



REPRINTED FROM 

ARCHIVES OF PSYCHOLOGY 

NO. 34 



Submitted in partial AilflUnent of the requirements for the degree ef Doctor of 
Philosophy in the Faculty of Philosophy, Columbia University 



NEW YORK 
1916 



THE RELATION OF QUICKNESS OF 
LEARNING TO RETENTIYENESS 



BY - 

DARWESr OLIVER LYON, A. M. 



KEPRINTED FROM 

ARCHIVES OF PSYCHOIiOGY 

No. 34 



Submitted In partial ftilfilnient of the requirements for the degree ef Doctor of 
Philosophy in the Faculty of Philosophy, Columbia University 



NBW YORK 
1916 






Press of 

The new Era printing Company 

Lancaster, Pa. 



Gift -s^ 
OCT 22 «? 






PREFACE 

The present work is the outgrowth of experiments on memory that 
I have been conducting since the year 1906. My studies have had in 
view several problems under the general head of memory, and some 
of the results have already been published as follows : 

' ' The Relation of Length of Material to Time Taken for Learning, 
and the Optimum Distribution of Time," Journal of Educational 
Psychology, 1914, 5, 1-9, 85-91, 155-163. 

The problem of the present study has been in view from the start, 
but has not been included, except incidentally, in the articles which 
are enumerated above. 

Acknowledgments are due first of all to Professor Cattell, to whom 
I am especially indebted for the numerous suggestions and for the 
many valuable hints and criticisms given me in the treatment of the 
results. For similar reasons I must also thank Professors Thorndike 
and Woodworth. To Professor E. Meumann, formerly of the Uni- 
versity of Leipzig, I am indebted for his numerous suggestions and 
for the opportunity given me to perform certain experiments on the 
students at the University of Leipzig. 

The numerous professors, superintendents, principals and teachers 
who have made this work possible are too numerous to mention. I am 
under particular obligation, however, to Alfred E. Rejall, formerly 
professor of philosophy and psychology of the State Normal College 
at Albany, N. Y. ; and also to Mr. Frank Lawrence Glynn, superin- 
tendent of the State Trade School of Bridgeport, for numerous cour- 
tesies extended me, as well as for his expert opinion on all matters per- 
taining to vocational instruction. 

The author also extends his thanlcs to the following for permis- 
sions and privileges granted : Joseph F. Scott, superintendent of New 
York State Reformatories and Prisons; Hon. John J. Barry, com- 
missioner of correction of the City of New York ; Dr. C. Macfie Camp- 
bell, of Bloomingdale Hospital, White Plains ; Dr. Frederic L. Wells, 
of McLean Hospital, Waverley, Mass. ; Dr. August Hoch, director of 
the Psychiatric Institute on Wards Island. 

The writer also desires to acknowledge his indebtedness to all those 
who served as subjects in the various experiments, and especially to 
those who were so obliging as to undertake the 40-nonsense-syllable, 
and other long tests. 

iii 



CONTENTS 

Chapter I 

Historical 1 

Chapter II 

Methods Employed ,• 17 

The Problem Stated 17 

Methods of Experiment 17 

Materials Used 22 

Methods of Scoring 24 

Classes of Subjects Tested 33 

Chapter III 

Eesults 34 

The Tables 34 

Time of Initial Learning 37 

Interval between Learning and Reproduction 40 

Amount Retained 41 

Intellectual Standing 52 

Social Standing 53 

Age 54 

Sex 55 

Chapter IV 

Summary and Recapitulation of the Main Results 56 

Appendix 

Some of the Materials Used 59 



THE RELATION OF THE QUICKNESS OF LEARN- 
ING TO RETENTIVENESS 



CHAPTER I 

HISTORICAL 



The history of scientific inquiry concerning the relation of The 
Quickness of Learning to Retentiveness, and, for that matter nearly 
all experimental work on memory, dates back only thirty-four years. 
Before 1880, experimental psychology had confined itself largely to 
reaction times and sensations, but with the publication of Ebbing- 
haus's ''Uber das Gedachtnis"^ in 1885 experimental work on mem- 
ory acquired an impetus that has ever since been on the increase. 
The material chosen by Ebbinghaus for his experiments consisted of 
about 2,300 nonsense-syllables made and selected as follows : From the 
simple consonants and the eleven German vowels and diphthongs he 
formed all the meaningless syllables possible by placing a vowel or a 
diphthong between two consonants. These lists of nonsense-syllables 
were then shuffled and drawn by lot. Ebbinghaus preferred these 
"nonsense-syllables" to words because of their relative simplicity. 
The remark is often made, however, that nonsense-syllables are not 
simple, and that on the contrary, they are in some respects as com- 
plex as words. Ebbinghaus himself remarks that something more 
simple would be desirable for the reason that the learning of nonsense- 
syllables involves not only the sense of sight and hearing, but the 
muscular sense of the vocal organs (tongue, lips, etc.) . Moreover, not 
only do nonsense-syllables not possess equivalent tendencies to set up 
association processes, but certain lists of syllables that may appear 
equally difficult to one individual, may appear very unequal to 
another. However, with all their faults, nonsense-syllables are pre- 
ferred by many psychologists to words, prose, or poetry for testing 
the "organic memory." Words are apt to form associations too 
easily, especially with some individuals ; and prose and poetry are far 
from being homogeneous in that they are constantly changing in 
character. This is especially the case with those individuals in whom 

1 An excellent translation of this monograph has recently been made by 
Euger & Bussenius, vmder the title "Memory." It comprises Educational Ee- 
print No. 3 of Teachers College, Columbia University. 

1 



2 BEL AT ION OF QUICKNESS OF LEARNING TO BETENTIVENESS 



"interest" is so necessary that material not "interesting" to them is 
practically impossible of memorization. Though it is true that many 
of the nonsense-syllables used by Ebbinghaus were such as to allow 
numerous associations, his experiments were so conducted as to pre- 
clude the forming of these associations to a considerable extent; in 
fact, with Ebbinghaus they were seldom formed. Another advantage 
in the use of nonsense-syllables is that they afford an almost unlimited 
number of combinations of a similar character and quantity. Never- 
theless, nonsense-syllables have so many objections not carried by 
digits that it is a question as to whether the latter would not be better 
for the testing of "organic" or "rote" memory. 

Ebbinghaus gave much careful attention to details of method. 
His method was to repeat the syllables aloud until he could voluntarily 
recall them. He considered that he "knew" them when he was able 
to repeat the series correctly, in a given time, after the first syllable 
had been supplied, A series was read through once from beginning 
to end without stopping, and then upon the first syllable being sup- 
plied the attempt was made to repeat the entire series, stopping how- 
ever, at the first hesitation. At this first hesitation, the remainder of 
the list was read and the entire repetition was started again. The 
syllables were read and repeated at the rate of 150 per minute and 
in a uniform tone. The rate was secured by timing the reading by 
' ticking of a watch or by the strokes of a metronome. Upon a series 
being completely memorized, Ebbinghaus made a pause of 15 seconds 
for noting the results, after which he immediately started in on an- 
other series. No attempt Avas made to form logical associations, the 
speed being so great as to practically preclude this. Ebbinghaus 
took great care that all the conditions would be such as to favor atten- 
tion ; his environment was such as to favor concentration and in case 
of ill health the experiment was deferred. 

Though Ebbinghaus did not specifically attack the problem of 
retention as related to speed of learning, some of his results are 
fundamental in considering this problem. It should be understood 
that he experimented only upon himself as subject, and that his re- 
sults have therefore, in the first instance, only individual validity; 
but it should also be remarlced that he tested every point in many 
trials, and that he was, undoubtedly, an unusually steady and trust- 
worthy subject for experiment. 

One of his results that is pertinent to our study concerns the effect 
on retention of varying amounts of time devoted to the original 
learning. He found, as we should naturally expect, that the greater 
the number of repetitions, within certain limits, the better the reten- 
tion. To determine the effect of many repetitions upon retention he 



EISTOBICAL 3 

repeated a series of 16 syllables a definite number of times, and then 
noted how many repetitions were required 24 hours later to complete 
the learning-. He found that about one third of the labor was saved 
by the repetition of the day before. Thus we may say that three 
repetitions to-day save one to-morrow, or, in other words, for every 
three times a person repeats such a list to-day, he will save one repe- 
tition 24 hours later. This was true, whether the number of repeti- 
tions on the first day was barely sufficient, more than sufficient, or less 
than sufficient to enable the series to be immediately recited. 

In a general way, this same result applied also to the retention of 
series of differing length, learned at first to the point of correct 
recitation. As would be expected, it required a longer time to learn a 
long series than a shorter one. Ebbinghaus found that, as a rule, he 
could repeat a series of seven syllables after a single reading ; about 
17 readings were required for a series of twelve syllables, and nearly 
30 readings for a series of sixteen. But, on testing twenty-four hours 
later, he found that the longer series were the better retained. The 
additional work which the long series demanded in learning produced 
an enduring effect, much as if it had been devoted to the over-learning 
of shorter series. 

Ebbinghaus found that the value of a repetition for purposes of 
retention was greater when the learning was distributed over several 
days than when it was concentrated into a single study period. Thus, 
in one series of experiments, he learned 12-syllable series on one day, 
and relearned them on the three succeeding days. The average num- 
ber of readings required for an errorless recitation was 17.5 the first 
day, 12 the second day, 8.5 the third day and 5 the fourth day. In 
another experiment he continued reading 12 syllables beyond the time 
necessary to learn them, *. e., the number of repetitions was greater than 
that needed for an errorless repetition. Thus if the series was re- 
peated only eight times on one day they were not known the following 
day ; nor could they even be recognized as the list studied. If given 
68 repetitions, however, they could be recognized the next day, al- 
though the series could not be given, for, on relearning the series 24 
hours later, 7 repetitions were required. On comparing the two facts 
' as given above it will be noticed that in the first case 38 repetitions, 
distributed over three days, needed on the fourth day only five repe- 
titions ; while 68 readings on one day needed, even on the very next 
day, seven repetitions. 

Ebbinghaus 's studies on the rate of forgetting are especially well 
known. He found that while it is relatively rapid at first, later 
it goes on more and more slowly, and in his judgment nothing once 
learned is ever absolutely forgotten. He found after an interval of 



4 RELATION OF QUICKNESS OF LEARNING TO EETENTIVENESS 

one hour so much has been forgotten that more than half the time 
originally expended must be again applied to the work in order 
to relearn it. After eight hours almost two thirds of the labor 
must be repeated. From this point it would seem that the process 
of forgetting proceeds more slowly. After twenty-four hours 
two thirds of the original labor must still be performed, i. e., the 
"impression of the whole" retains about one third of its original 
strength. The change now becomes still slower, for even after six 
days one quarter is still retained, and after a month one fifth. "It 
is noteworthy" says Burnham, "that, while the impression made by 
nonsense-syllables is so evanescent that a series once perfectly learned 
is forgotten after an interval of twenty minutes, a residuum of some 
sort persists for a long time, so that even after a month the same 
series can be relearned in four fifths of the time originally required. 
A general statement of the results is as follows : The ratio of what is 
retained to what is forgotten is inversely as the logarithm of the 
time." 

Thus far we have considered only those experiments of Ebbing- 
haus in which the material used was nonsense syllables.. We will now 
turn our attention to the experiments in which he used logical trains 
of thovgJit. For this work Ebbinghaus used stanzas from Byron's 
"Don Juan." He found that the time taken to learn a stanza was 
only one tenth as long as that needed for a list of nonsense syllables of 
the same number as the number of syllables in the stanza. In other 
words, material connected by the bonds of sense and rhythm needed 
only one tenth the number of repetitions required by material vot 
so connected. Not only was the meaningful material more speedily 
learned, but it was also better retained. As tested twenty-four hours 
after learning, by his "saving method,"^ the retention was as follows : 

No. Readings Re- No. Readings Re- Per Cent. 

Material Learned quired to Learn quired to Relearn Retained 

12-syllable series 16.5 11 33 

24-syllable series 44 22.5 49 

36-syllable series 55 23 58 

Stanza of "Don Juan" 7.75 3.75 52 

Meaning, therefore, affects the speed of learning and the retention 
in the same way, favoring quick learning and tenacity of retention. 

Another factor that affects the two in the same way is the speed 
of reading. Ebbinghaus reports experiments^ in memorizing stanzas 
of Schiller's translation of the ^neid at the rate of 200, 150. 120 and 
100 iambics per minute. At these rates, he learned the same number 

2 See below, p. 20. 

sGrundzuge der Psychologie, " 2d ed., 1911, pp. 672-673, 



EISTOBICAL 5 

of lines in 138, 148, 160 and 180 seconds respectively, thus proving 
that the amount of time required varied inversely as the speed of 
reading. 

To be sure, a greater number of repetitions is required with the 
rapid than with the slow rates. He concludes that the fastest rate of 
reading is the most economical as concerns the act of learning. In 
order to test the retention as well, he relearned the stanzas twenty- 
four hours later, using now for all the constant rate of 150 iambic 
feet per minute, and found that the stanzas which had been originally 
read at the greatest speed and learned in the least time were also, on 
the whole, slightly better retained than those that had been read more 
slowly. He repeated the retention test after eight days, with the same 
result. 

In 1887 G. E. Miiller and F. Schumann,* stimulated by the work 
of Ebbinghaus, set out to repeat his experiments on a more elaborate 
scale, making, however, certain changes in method and material. 
Their labors extended over a period of five years (1887-1892 inc.). 
The only fundamental difference between their experiments and those 
of Ebbinghaus was that they did not let the subject know the purpose 
or result of the various experiments, a thing obviously impossible 
where the experimenter uses himself as subject. The material used 
consisted of nonsense-syllables similar to those iLsed by Ebbinghaus, 
but selected with greater care, and instead of being read directly from 
the sheet of paper on which they were written and where they could 
all be seen at once, they were read from a revolving drum through 
a slit in a screen. The drum from which the syllables were read was 
allowed to revolve at different rates in the various experiments. The 
three rates used were such that the syllables appeared at intervals of 
0.731, 0.615, and 0.572 seconds, respectively. Thus the intervals were 
so short that no time was given for a second perception or for the 
formation of mnemonic acids. As explained before, the material used 
by Ebbinghaus was far from being homogeneous, and had he not read 
them at so rapid a rate many of his nonsense-syllables would have been 
highly undesirable because of their easy associations. Miiller and 
Schumann invented a convenient plan for constructing nonsense- 
syllables of a more homogeneous sort than those used by EbbinghaiLS. 
Ebbinghaus left the make-up of the syllables wholly to chance, while 
Miiller and Schumann laid down certain rules making the series of 
syllables ' ' normal " or " extra normal. " A ' ' normal ' ' list of syllables 
had all the initial consonants, all middle vowels, and all final con- 
sonants different, respectively, from the syllable immediately pre- 

* ' ' Experimentelle Beitrage zur Untersuehung des GedacMnisses, ' ' Zeitsch. 
fur Fsych., 1894, 6, 81, 257. 



6 BELATION OF QUICKNESS OF LEARNING TO BETENTIVENESS 

ceding or following. The initial consonant of the first, and final con- 
sonant of the second syllable in any one of the trochaic feet into 
which the series was divided in reading, were never the same. Syl- 
lables forming well-known words were never allowed to come together. 
A series of syllables was called "extra normal" when no two syl- 
lables used on the same day had two letters the same. 

The most important results of Miiller and Schumann's experi- 
ments, bearing on the quickness of learning, may be stated as follows : 

1. The association between syllables in the same foot is much 
stronger than that between adjacent members of different feet. The 
suppression of rhythm in memorizing lists of nonsense-syllables 
renders the task much more difficult, nearly twice as much time being 
required. 

2. The syllables first learned are not necessarily those presented 
the earliest. Frequently those syllables at the end of the set are the 
first the subject is able to reproduce. The syllable first learned is that 
which first attracts the attention strongly. This may be because cer- 
tain associations arose easily or it may depend on circumstances 
purely accidental, i. e., the syllable may have appeared just when the 
attention was at its "height," and thus the syllable having gained the 
"ascendency," kept it, since the attention naturally centered on it 
every time. 

3. The first of any two successively and simultaneously experi- 
enced syllables tends to call up the second. If they are associated 
only through intermediate syllables, the association is stronger if both 
are accented. The second syllable in a trochaic measure tends to call 
up the first, and this tendency seems to be stronger than the tendency 
to call up the first syllable of the next sueceeding measure.' 

4. Under certain conditions, syllables with associations already 
established prove more difficult to memorize in combination with new 
syllables, than when such associations are lacking. The previous asso- 
ciations press in on consciousness and disturb attention in various 
ways. 

5. The ease of memorizing seems to depend upon the amount and 
character of the work that has immediately preceded, aside from the 
factor of fatigue, which, of course, is all-important. 

6. The ease with which series of such syllables are learned de- 
pends not alone on the subjective differences, but also on objective 
conditions, which, however, may lead to subjective differences. 

Colegrove in his book entitled "Memory" briefly sums up other 

5 We should not, however, infer from this that every presentation alirays 
tends to call up the one preceding but we should take it that when any element 
of a complex presentation is supplied it tends to call up all the others. 



HISTOBICAL 7 

results of Miiller and Schumann 's work as follows : A syllable series 
can be learned more easily (1) if two or more successive syllables have 
like initial consonants; (2) if two syllables rhyme; (3) if two suc- 
cessive syllables or initial syllables of two successive rhythms have 
the same vowel or diphthong; (4) if the beginning consonant of the 
first syllable and the end consonant of the second syllable of a rhythm, 
or the end consonant of a syllable and the beginning consonant of the 
next syllable are the same ; (5) if two or more syllables form a word. 
On the other hand, consonants difficult to pronounce or an accumula- 
tion of diphthongs impeded the act of memorizing. A series in the 
trochaic rhythm is memorized more easily than a series in the iambic 
rhythm. 

As regards retention, Miiller and Schumann found that the per- 
son who memorized a series of nonsense-syllables in the shortest time 
also relearned it in the shortest time after 24 hours. This was to be 
expected, since what is forgotten can be relearned more quickly by a 
quick learner than by a slow learner. But the slow learner saved 
more time, both absolutely and relatively, than the fast learner, when 
the relearning was compared with the original learning. 

Whitehead, in "A Study of Visual and Aural Memory Proc- 
esses,"® sets out to answer the following questions, among others: 
(1) What is the relative quickness of the visual and the aural senses 
when employed in the memorizing of nonsense-syllables constructed 
like those of Miiller and Schumann ? (2) What is the relative power 
of retention for matter memorized visually compared with that mem- 
orized aurally? Or, put otherwise, what is the relative rate of for- 
getting for material memorized in the two ways ? 

Whitehead answers the above questions as follows: "(1) Of our 
thirteen subjects ten showed themselves able to memorize most rapidly 
from visual presentations and two from auditory, while one gave am- 
biguous results. This outcome is without much doubt to be correlated 
with the fact that so much of our memorizing, whether it occurs in 
the verbatim form, or merely as the assimilation of meaning, is 
brought about through visual process. (2) Matter memorized aurally 
appears to be retained slightly better than that memorized visually. 
It requires less repetition by 32 per cent, to learn anew from visual 
presentations matter memorized visually a week previous, and less 
repetition by 40 per cent, for aural memorizing of the same kind. 
The difference is insignificant in view of the total number of cases. 
It seems to be simply a special case illustrative of the general prin- 
ciple already mentioned that the greater the number of original repe- 
titions the less the number necessary for learning anew." 
Psych. Bev., 1896, 3, 258. 



8 EELATION OF QUICKNESS OF LEAENIN^ TO BETENTIVENESS 

In regard to individual differences in retentiveness, Whitehead 
considers that the slow learner both releams in shorter time and 
retains a larger amount, than the fast learner. An examination of his 
results however, does not entirely support this conclusion. As Pyle 
very correctly says, "If we eliminate the results from one of his sub- 
jects (the eleventh in the first table, p. 267) as being an error (for it 
shows a relearning time longer than the time for original learning), 
and add the relearning times for the fast six and the slow six, respec- 
tively, we find without exception that the six who had learned in the 
shortest time aLso relearned in the shortest time. In fact, if we rank 
the two series for learning and relearning, for the various tables, from 
the best to poorest, we find a fairly high degree of correlation between 
quick learning and good retention." 

Jost, in his article entitled "Die Assoziationsfestigkeit in ihrer 
Abhangigkeit von der Verteilung der Wiederholungen,"^ takes up 
the distribution of repetitions as a factor of the strength of associa- 
tion. At first he uses the method of "complete memorizing"; then 
he uses the method of "right associates." and finally the two in con- 
junction. By the first method he finds that ten readings of a series 
of nonsense-syllables on each of three successive days make the mem- 
orizing of the series on the fourth day easier than do thirty readings 
on the day immediately preceding, although the difference is small. 
By the method of right associates he finds that when twenty-four repe- 
titions are distributed equally on three, six and twelve days, respec- 
tively, the most extended distribution (that of two repetitions a day), 
gives the best retention.^ Jost emphasizes especially the matter of 
repetitions, and explains the value of rests between readings by the 
theory that the repetition of an older association has a greater value, 
relatively, than the repetition of a younger one. 

In her article entitled "Experimentelle Beitrage zur Lehre vom 
okonomischen Lernen,"^ Miss Lottie Steffens considers the problem 
of the most "economical" method of learning, more especially for 
logical trains of thought. The two methods of study which she com- 
pares are the "piecemeal" and the "entire" or "mass" methods. 
The former is that usually adopted spontaneously by a person who 
has a long passage to learn, and consists in dividing the passage into 
parts, and reading each part separately till it can be recited, finishing 
up by a few readings of the whole passage. The "entire" method 

7 Zeitsch. f. Ps\jc}wJ., 1897, 14, 436. 

8 The question naturally arises, however, as to whether some other distribu- 
tion might not be still more favorable. This problem, viz., the optimum distribu- 
tion of time is considered in greater detail in my article cited in the preface. 

9 Zeitsch., 1900, 22, 321, 465. 



HISTOEICAL S 

consists in reading the whole passage through and through till it is 
learned. The ''entire" method, though not appealing to the subject 
at the outset, is shown experimentally to give the quicker learning, as 
well as the better retention. 

These experiments were repeated by Pentschew,^^ with children 
as well as adults. He confirmed the advantage of the ' ' entire ' ' over 
the "piecemeal" method of study in adults, and also in children so 
far as concerns the learning and retention of meaningful material. 
With nonsense syllables, however, children did better by the "piece- 
meal" method, probably because, with children, the learning of non- 
sense demands so much effort that fatigue and disinclination creep in 
unless the syllables are studied in small groups. 

Ogden, in his paper entitled "Ueber den Einfluss der Gesehwin- 
digkeit des lauten Lesens auf das Erlernen und Behalten von sinn- 
losen und sinnvollen Stoffen,"" obtain results much the same as 
those of Miiller and Schumann. He finds that the fast learner 
rarely requires more time for his relearning than does the slow 
learner, but usually less. Ogden used both logical as well as nonsense 
material and his results were practically the same for both. He found 
that although the curve of relearning is as a rule nearly parallel to the 
curve of initial learning, it showed as a rule some flattening, that is, 
individual differences in time of relearning are not as great as are 
the differences in time of initial learning, 

Henderson^- found that in general those who learn quickly are able 
later to recall a greater percentage of what they have learned than 
the slow learners. In other words he finds that the power to learn 
readily correlates with the power to remember what has been 
learned. In his experiments, however, he did not allow his subjects to 
completely learn the material, and for his material he used only prose. 
His method, briefly, was as follows : He requested his subjects to read 
twice a selection taken from "The Dutch Homestead" by Irving. 
Three minutes was allowed for this. The subjects were then requested 
to write down as much as they could remember. Two days later they 
were again called upon to write down as much as possible, and after 
a lapse of four weeks a third recall was requested. His subjects 
varied from ten years up. He found that the older subjects learned 
somewhat better than the younger and explained this as due to their 
greater capacity to understand. This capacity, however, seemed to 

10 ' ' Untersuchungen zur Okonomie und Technik des Lernens, ' ' Arch. f. d. 
ges. Psychol, 1903, 1, 417. 

11 ArcMv. f. d. ges. Psychol., 2, 93. 

12 E. N. Henderson, "A Study in Memory," Psych. Eev. Man. Sup., No. 23, 
]903. 



10 EELATION OF QUICKNESS OF LEAENING TO EETENTIFENESS 

have no influence on the relative retention. Henderson's results can 
not be held to apply to nonsense-syllables or other meaningless mate- 
rial ; and even with respect to connected prose, the material used, his 
results are not directly comparable with those of experiments in 
which complete memorizing has occurred. 

Radosavljevich,^^ conducting experiments in Meumann's labora- 
tory upon both adults and children, found better retention for mean- 
ingful than for nonsense material, thus confirming the result above 
quoted from Ebbinghaus. He also confirmed Ebbinghaus's result 
that long series of nonsense-syllables were better retained than short 
series, when each had been studied to the point of correct recitation. 
Practise increased the speed of the first learning and of relearning, 
but the first more than the second, indicating that memorizing and 
retention are two distinct facts of memory, possessing their own 
peculiar laws and conditions. The slower learner showed a greater 
"saving" in relearning, and he concludes from this that the slow 
learners retain better than the rapid learners. Adults learn more 
rapidly than children, but (again according to the "saving" method) 
retain less of what they have learned; and the younger children, 
similarly, learn more slowly but retain better than older children. 

Extensive experiments upon "The Relation of Facility of Learn- 
ing to Tenacity of Impression" have been conducted by Miss Gamble 
since 1908, and are not yet published in full at the date of this 
writing.^* Her experiments were designed to answer the following 
questions : 

1. Do the persons who learn with the greater degree of facility 
retain for a given time the larger fraction of the material severally 
mastered ? 

2. In the case of individual subjects, does the rate at which mate- 
rial is presented affect the fraction of the initial learning time which 
is saved in the relearning? 

3. When the learning time is lengthened by the difficulty of the 
material is the relearning ti-me relatively short or relatively long ? 

4. How may retention best be gauged ? 

Two sets of experiments were made : the first set bore only upon 
the first and fourth of the above questions and was made bj^ the 
method of retained membersy^ The other set, made by the method of 

13 "Das Behalten und Vergessen bei Kindern und Erwachsenen nach experi- 
mentellen Untersuchungen," Leipzig, 1907. 

14 The rather brief summary of her work here given has been made from 
notes taken during the reading of a paper by her at the Washington meeting of 
the American Association for the Advancement of Science (December, 1911). 

15 This method will be found described below on page 18. 



EISTOBICAL 11 

complete memorizing (Erlemungsmethode)^^ bore upon all four 
questions. 

In the first set of experiments Gamble used as subjects 350 college 
students and as material words, letters and figures. The method of 
presenting the material and the method of ascertaining each subject's 
degree of retentiveness differed somewhat from year to year, but the 
procedure may be roughly outlined as follows : The material was read 
4 or 5 times to the subjects and 5 or 6 weeks later was again presented. 
The subject's tenacity was gauged by the two methods: The first was 
comparable to what I have called "Method 1,"^^ retention being 
gauged by the amount of material that could be reproduced without 
a fresh presentation. The material was then read once to the sub- 
jects, after which another reproduction was called for. This is prac- 
tically the same as what I have called ** Method 2,"^® The material 
was then read several times to the subjects after which still another 
reproduction was called for. In some respects, as far as results go, 
this is very much the same as my "Method 3,"^^ although complete 
relearning was not allowed. On the basis of the results obtained by 
Method 1, the subjects were arranged in two scales according to their 
facility in learning and according to their retentiveness as measured 
by the fraction retained of the amount originally learned. Each 
scale was divided into quarters. Gamble found that those who fell in 
the first quartile as regards facility in learning, fell in the first quar- 
tile as regards retentiveness in sufficient numbers to show a marked 
correlation between quickness of learning and tenacity of impres- 
sion. ^^ She recognizes the fact that some subjects who learn a very 
small amount in the first experiment appear to have retained a rela- 
tively large amount, merely because the amount learned the first 
time was so small that almost anything retained must be a large 
fraction of it. The results secured by what I have called ' ' Method 2 ' ' 
were of doubtful significance but the results obtained by "Method 3" 
showed, as might be expected, a marked correlation between facility 
in learning and relearning, 

16 This method will be found described on page 2. As used by Gamble, 
it was practically the same as the method used by Ebbinghaus except that with 
her the presentations were aural instead of visual. 

17 See below, page 18. 

18 See below, page 19. 

19 See below, page 19. 

20 Were there no correlation whatsoever it is obvious that, by chance alone, 
about 25 per cent, of those standing in the first quartile of "primary learning" 
would stand in the first quartile of "retentiveness." As a matter of fact, how- 
ever, Gamble found that the percentage waa about 45, — i. e., 20 per cent, more 
than chance alone could account for. 



12 RELATION OF QUICKNESS OF LEARNING TO RETENTIVENESS 

In the second set of experiments mentioned above (those made 
upon subjects by the method of complete-memorizing) facility and 
tenacity were gauged by the time (in seconds) of learning and re- 
learning. The material consisted of nonsense-syllables. The time 
which elapsed between learning and relearning was either one or two 
weeks, differing with different subjects. In these experiments Gamble 
found a slight correlation between quickness of learning and reten- 
tiveness. This, however, she found by what we might term the ' ' abso- 
lute" method of comparison, i. e., a comparison of the actual time 
taken for relearning with the actual time taken for the original 
learning — not dividing the one into the other and, therefore, not a 
comparison of percentages. Gamble thus found that, when facility 
and tenacity are measured on an absolute time basis, those who learn 
quickly are apt to relearn quickly. 

Gamble found that when a series of nonsense-syllables was learned 
and relearned at the same rate of presentation the fraction of the 
learning time saved in relearning is greater if the presentation rate 
is neither very slow nor very fast. When the series are learned at 
different presentation rates but relearned at the same rate, the frac- 
tion of the learning time saved is greater for the series which were 
originally learned at the slow rate of presentation, unless the absolute 
learning time of the "slow series" is very small. Series which are 
hard to learn are more often hard than easy to relearn. 

In attempting to answer the question, how retention may best be 
gauged, Gamble admits that no single method is satisfactory. She 
objects to a method of reproduction without fresh presentation for 
the reason that if a long time has elapsed since the series was learned, 
very many of the subjects can actually reproduce no units whatsoever, 
although the series may have left subliminal impressions which differ 
from subject to subject. Though she thinks the method of relearning 
is valuable to use in conjunction with others, she points out the im- 
possibility of distinguishing the revival of old impressions from a 
genuine new learning. In the paper here summarized she reached no 
definite conclusions in regard to the best method of testing retentive- 
ness. 

Pyle, in studying "Retention as Related to Repetition,"-^ used 
for material passages from an elementary book on nature study, con- 
taining 40 "ideas" each. Each passage contained on an average 150 
words. The subjects taking part in the experiment were twelve 
graduate and senior college students. Pyle's method of presenting 
the material to the subjects was as follows: 

The experimenter read the material to the subject. After the 

21 Jovr. of Ed. Psych., 1911, 2, 311. 



HISTORICAL 1 3 

first reading, the subject gave orally as many ideas as he could recall. 
The experimenter checked up the record, recording the number of 
ideas correctly reported. Then the material was read a second time, 
and a second report was given by the subject and checked up by 
the experimenter. The experiment was continued in this manner 
until the subject reported, in his own words, every idea. The experi- 
menter having before him a copy of the material divided off by 
vertical lines into forty units, found it easy to check up the reports 
as given orally. 

After the lapse of 24 hours, the subjects were called upon to repro- 
duce, in writing, as much of the material as possible. The written 
''ideas" were marked either ''right" or "wrong," "ideas" that were 
partially correct— that is, that had a "kernel" of truth— being 
marked as correct if they closely approximated the correct idea* 
rarely, half-credit was given when the variation from the correct 
meaning was considerable. The material was divided into such 
small units, each significant adjective, adverb or expression being set 
off as a separate unit, that this point gave little trouble,— a subject 
either reported the idea or he did not. 

The results of Pyle's most extensive set of experiments are shown 
in the table below. Only four subjects were here used, but each of 
them memorized 21 passages (of 40 "ideas" each). 



Subject 
C 


To Learn 
Repetitions 


Av. Dev. 


(No 


. of Ideas) 
^tention 


Av Dev 


4.7 


2.24 




37.5 


2.0 


F 


2.9 


0.78 




38.5 


1.7 


K 


5.2 


1.40 




•34.2 


4.6 


J 


3.6 


1.90 




36.7 


3.2 




Ave, 4.1 






36.7 





The results as shown by this table show no great difference in 
amount retained between the fast learners and the slow learners. 
What little difference there is would seem to be in favor of the fast 
learners. It will be noted, however, that we can only say that they 
retain more absolutely. It is possible that had Pyle allowed his sub- 
jects to relearn the material previously memorized— obtaining his 
"amount retained" by dividing the time of second learning by the 
time of first learning— he might have found that the slow learners, 
although remembering absolutely less, could relearn what they had 
forgotten in a smaller percentage of their original learning-time 
than would be required by the fast learners. 

By the absolute method, however, Pyle is probably correct in his 
conclusion that "the slow learner certainly has no advantage in 
retention over the fast learner." It should be understood, however, 



14 BELATION OF QUICKNESS OF LEARNING TO HETENTIVENESS 

that no general conclusions can be drawn from so few subjects, and 
although in general Pyle 's eight other subjects bear out the same con- 
clusion, they do not do so unanimously'-. However, Pyle 's later study^^ 
of 600 school children shows a high correlation of learning capacity, 
as measured by immediate memory, with retention, as determined by 
amount retained 5 weeks later. This extensive study confirms his 
earlier intensive study, and his conclusions may be stated as follows : 
A slow learner with more time and repetitions spent in learning does 
not retain more, absolutely, than the faster learner who uses less 
time and fewer repetitions. 

In 1911, Busemann, in an article entitled "Lernen und Be- 
halten,"-^ published results of several years' work on various aspects 
of the memory problem. Only a small portion of this work, however, 
throws light on the relation of quickness of learning to retentiveness. 
His experiments were performed on school children ranging in age 
from 12 to 18 years. As material, he used lists of various parts of 
speech (nouns, adjectives, etc.) and simple syllables. From his re- 
sults he concludes that of two individuals the one who takes the 
greater amount of time in memorizing a series of words will require 
less time, relatively, in relearning them. 

In performing his experiments Busemann used two of the various 
methods described below (page 18), the method of complete mem- 
orization (Ersparnisverfahren), and the method of right associates 
(Treffermethode). He does not feel that his experiments with the 
first method can answer the question as to whether the quick learner 
also forgets quickly. He considers the "Treffermethode" the one to 
use in answering this question, but does not feel that with this method 
he performed a sufficient number of experiments to warrant his 
making any general statement. His results, however, as far as they 
go, would seem to point against the assumption that it is the quick 
learners who forget quickly. In summing up his work on this subject 
he says "it has not yet been proven that a greater ability to learn 
corresponds to a smaller ability to retain ; — on the contrary it is prob- 
ably true that the good learner is at the same time a good retainer, ' ' 

Miss Norsworthy, in &n article entitled "Acquisition as Belated to 
Retention, "24 presents some very interesting results. The material 
she used as well as her method of experimentation were different from 
any that we have thus far discussed. As subjects she used 83 students 
in educational psychology. The material used was a German-English 
vocabulary of 1,200 words. Each student studied twenty minutes for 

22 Jour, of Ed. Fsych., 1913, 4, 61. 

23 Zeit. fur angewandte Psych., 1911, 5, 211. 

24 Jour, of Ed. Psych., 1912, 3, 214. 



HISTOBICAL 15 

five days, memorizing as many of the English equivalents of the Ger- 
man words as possible. Two days were then allowed to elapse, when 
each student reviewed the list of words that he had succeeded in 
"memorizing" during the previous five days. Two days more were 
then allowed to elapse, when the work was again reviewed. At the 
first meeting of the class after the above three study periods were 
over, they were asked to write the English equivalents of a certain 
50 German words that were presented to them, and that had occurred 
in the list of German words they had succeeded in previously mem- 
orizing. From the results the percentage remembered could then 
be ascertained. One month after this test, another list of 50 words, 
chosen from those that remained, was presented to the subject with 
the request, as before, to write down as many of the English equiva- 
lents as possible. In like manner, the percentage remembered of these 
50 German words was ascertained. 

Norsworthy found that the average per cent, remembered in the 
first test was 63, and that the average per cent, remembered in the 
second test, one month later, was practically the same, being 62, 
From these averages she found the deviation, either -]- or — , for each 
of her 83 subjects. The average deviation from the median for the 
six subjects learning 700 words or over, was + 14, whereas for the 
13 subjects who learned only 300 words or under, the average devia- 
tion from the median was — 17. In other words, the quickest 
learners, who had mastered a vocabulary of over 700 words in a fixed 
time, retained a larger fraction than the slowest learners were able to 
retain of their much smaller vocabulary, learned in the same time. 
With the second test the difference was even more striking. The 
upper half of the class, in respect to size of vocabulary learned, re- 
membered in the first test, on the average, 70 per cent., the lower half 
only 52 per cent. The Pearson coefficient, for the whole class, between 
the number of words learned and the average per cent, remembered 
is .41 for the first test and .50 for the second test. In short, Nors- 
worthy finds a high positive correlation between rate of learning and 
retention — a correlation that is considerably higher than that obtained 
by any of the investigators whose work we have already examined. 
This, however, is probably due, not only to the method she used — the 
time remaining constant but the amount learned varying — but also 
to the nature of her material. This is not meant as a criticism. In 
fact it is probable that the use of such material as a German-English 
vocabulary, especially when used in the manner chosen by Nors- 
worthy, is far better, than the use of such material as nonsense- 
syllables, if we mean by ' ' memory ' ' such memory as occurs in every- 
day life and especially in the school room. 



16 DELATION OF QUICKNESS OF LEARNING TO EETENTIVENESS 

Norsworthy's method of keeping the time constant, but allowing 
the amount learned to vary, has numerous advantages. It frees the 
learner from the responsibility of having to decide when he thinks 
that the material has been thoroughly memorized — "a responsibility 
that brings a very varying personal equation into the problem. It 
also frees the investigator from the burden of making a fair allow- 
ance for imperfectly learned material. ' '^^ 

In summing up the results of these various investigators, it is 
perhaps fair to say that they have found in the main, and other things 
being equal, the individuals who learn the quickest to remember the 
longest, i. e., to be the best retainers. Miiller and Schumann found 
that the quick learners forgot more, but were able to relearn what 
they had forgotten in a shorter time than the slow learners. An 
examination of their data shows that, relatively speaking, there is 
not much difference between the quick and the slow learner. ' White- 
head believes that the slow learner is a better retainer, but from the 
data he gives it is difficult to see just how he arrives at» this conclu- 
sion. Norsworthy, on the other hand, obtains a very high positive 
correlation. Working with a German-English vocabulary she finds 
that the last quarter of her class retain only two thirds as much as 
the first quarter. Ogden and Henderson working with meaningful 
material unite in finding that as a rule the quickest learner is the 
best retainer. Pyle is somewhat more conservative but says that the 
fast learner is certainly at no disadvantage in retention. 

With most of his subjects, Busemann finds that rapid learning 
means good retention. Gamble, dividing her classes into halves, 
quarters, etc., after much the same manner as Norsworthy, obtained 
in the long run a positive correlation. 

In the following pages, which deal with the special research that 
it is the object of this paper to present, an attempt will be made to 
prove that on the problem in question no general law or conclusion 
can be drawn from the use of any single material or method. We will 
endeavor to prove that not only do different methods give different 
results, but we shall endeavor to show that with the same data it is 
possible to draw contrary conclusions by dealing with the data in 
different ways. 

25 Op. cit. 



CHAPTER II 

METHODS EMPLOYED 

The Problem Stated 

The experiments, which, with their results and the various meth- 
ods of dealing with same, it is the special object of this paper to dis- 
cuss, may be briefly stated as consisting in the learning, or "mem- 
orizing" of certain materials, allowing a definite number of days to 
elapse, and then measuring retention by one or more of the methods 
mentioned later in the chapter. In this way a fairly accurate idea 
was obtained of each subject's retentiveness, and by comparing this 
with the time taken for the initial learning, we arrive at a fairly 
accurate idea of the relation of each individual's quickness of learn- 
ing to his retentiveness. 

So varied were the materials used and so different the ages, con- 
ditions, intellectual standing, etc., of the subjects experimented on, 
that many* results were obtained that have been considered sufficiently 
valuable to warrant mention although they were not the especial ob- 
ject of the research, and in many cases have no direct relation to the 
problem. Besides the so-called "normal" subjects, state prison con- 
victs and asylum patients were tested. The latter, over 200 in num- 
ber, give results so complex in character that they shall be considered 
only very briefly. 

Our results obtained show not only the relation between quickness 
of learning and retentiveness, but also the relative amount of for- 
getting after different intervals; the relation between memory for 
logical trains of thought and for lists of syllables or digits ; the effect 
of age, sex and training on rapidity of learning and remembering; 
and a comparison of the amount actually retained by each subject 
with what he can reproduce after one reading. 

Methods of Experiment 

The main difficulty that one encounters in investigating such a 
problem as this is to determine which of the various possible methods 
and materials shall be used. To use all methods and all materials 
would involve too great a labor for any one experimenter. Three 
methods were used in this research. Since each method is frequently 
spoken of and referred to, it was deemed best to give each one some 

17 



18 RELATION OF QUICKNESS OF LEARNING TO EETENTIVENESS 

distinctive appellation, and I have named them "Method 1," 
''Method 2" and "Method 3." Briefly stated these methods are as 
follows : 
Method 1. — Keproduction, as far as possible, of the material originally 

learned without fresh presentation. 
Method 2. — Reproduction, as far as possible after a single presen- 
tation. 
Method 3. — Supplying the subject with the original material and 
taking his time for relearning it. 
■ We shall now consider each of these methods in detail. 
Method 1. — The subject was given, face downward, a sheet of 
paper on which were typewritten 20 nonsense-syllables.^ He was told 
that he could study these in any way he saw fit, but that as soon as he 
felt positive he could repeat them without error he should say "now" 
and come to the experimenter's desk. He was advised not to come up 
before he felt quite certain that he could repeat them without error, 
as the time consumed, if he failed to give a perfect reproduction, 
would be counted as part of his "time for learning." To avoid com- 
petition, each subject was taken separately, although where the op- 
portunity presented itself, several subjects were allowed to study in 
one room, and allowed to come to the adjoining room for their hear- 
ing. Instead of reciting his work, each subject was allowed, if he 
preferred, to write it down. 

The question will naturally arise : What was done when the sub- 
ject came up for examination and made numerous mistakes ? To this 
we can only say that such was seldom the case, it being thoroughly 
impressed on the subject's mind that he must be sure he could repeat 
his material perfectly before coming up for his recitation. Where 
several serious mistakes were made the subject was always sent back 
to continue his work of memorizing. But where only one or two 
minor errors were made it was thought best to deduct for these in as 
fair and scientific a way as possible, rather than send the subject back. 
This may not seem strictly accurate and scientific, but of two evils it 
was thought to be the lesser. Otherwise a subject whose time was 15 
minutas for the nonsense-syllables might have been 30 minutes had he 
been sent back to correct the single minor error made. 

The material having thus been learned, a definite time interval 
was allowed to elapse after which each subject was called upon to re- 
produce in writing as much of the material as possible. It is in this 
reproduction that we have "Method 1." No especial directions were 

1 In explaining these three methods we shall speak only of nonsense syllables. 
Other materials were also used, as will be explained below. 

2 This varied in the different experiments from 1 day to 10 weeks. 



I 
I 



METHODS EMPLOYED 19 

given for "Method 1," other than requesting that each subject write 
down as much of the original as he could remember, using the original 
words whenever he was able. He was also told that where he could 
remember nothing but the "gist" of the passage,^ he was to "put 
that down." 

MetJiod 2. — Method 2 was made to follow immediately upon 
Method 1. The directions read to the subjects for this method were 
as follows: 

"You have just tried to reproduce from memory a set of nonsense- 
syllables that you learned one week ago. You probably have a fair 
idea as to the correctness of your paper. I shall now read for you the 
original set of nonsense-syllables and shall ask you to again write out 
the list so far as you are able. ' ' 

This method, that I have designated as "Method 2," is to my 
mind one of the most satisfactory. Unfortunately it was not used 
with the first group of subjects (1907-08). 

MetJiod 3. — Method 3 was made to follow immediately on Method 
2, The directions read to the subjects for this method were as 
follows : 

"You have tried to reproduce in writing a set of 20 nonsense- 
syllables that you memorized one week ago and which, after one hear- 
ing, you just now endeavored to reproduce. You undoubtedly have a 
fair idea as to the correctness of the paper you just handed me. I 
shall now supply you with the original set of nonsense-syllables with 
the request that you relearn them, saying "now" when you feel quite 
certain that you can reproduce the entire set. ' ' 

It will be noted, since in ' ' Method 2 ' ' the original material is read 
to the subject, that he does not enter upon "Method 3" with as much 
ignorance of the material, as if "Method 2" had been omitted. In 
view of this, in some of the later experiments, a separate series of 
syllables (or other material) was used for "Method 3," and this, of 
course, necessitated the memorizing of two distinct sets of syllables 
in the first place — one for Methods 1 and 2, and another for Method 3, 

The writer is aware that these methods are open to criticism. In 
the first place no one of the three methods is sufficient to answer the 
problem, and in averaging the results obtained by the three methods, 
it is a question which method to give the most weight. At the outset 
of these experiments. Method 3 was considered the most important, 
and Method 2 was ranked as being more important than Method 1. 
It was later thought, however, that the best way of arriving at each 
subject's general retentiveness was to count each method as equal. 

3 We are here supposing the material was prose or poetry. 



20 DELATION OF QUICKNESS OF LEAENING TO RETENTIFENESS 

We shall now, taking one method at a time, consider the chief criti- 
cisms that may be raised against it. 

Method 1. — It has the advantage of getting directly at the matter 
in hand, i. e., of obtaining from each subject exactly what has been 
so well retained that it can be voluntarily reproduced after a lapse 
of a certain period; but it has several disadvantages. The chief of 
these is that reproduction, without a fresh presentation of the mate- 
rial originally learned, reveals only the strongest of the original 
impressions — the so-called "supraliminal associations." It can be 
proved that many of the subjects have a considerable portion of the 
material once memorized on the "borderland," so to speak, — material 
that can be entirely recalled after one further reading. Were our 
investigation merely one dealing with the question of the relation 
of quickness of learning to reproductiveness, we would have to rank 
Method 1 higher than any other; but where ability to retain rather 
than ability to reproduce is the factor in question, it is obvious that 
we must take into consideration the various associations that are on 
the "borderland." 

Method 1 also has the disadvantage of giving results that are diffi- 
cult of measurement. Very frequently, in an attempted reproduction 
of material once memorized, the subject (if he is able to recall the 
various "topics" and "subtopics" and the "thought" of the passage 
in general) is apt to express this "thought" in a greater number of 
words than existed in the original passage. He is also very apt to 
introduce new thoughts, thoughts which he may or may not express in 
words that occurred in the original passage. This introduces several 
perplexing factors which are difficult of measurement. 

Method 2. — Its chief merit lies in the fact that it endeavors to do 
away with the above criticisms made against Method 1. To this end 
it endeavors to bring back the "subliminal" associations by reading 
the material once to the subject before asking for the reproduction. 
This one "reading" however, carries with it its own penalty. A 
single reading of a passage of 100 words consumes about one half 
minute and it is obvious that one half minute to a quick learner 
means much more than does one half minute to a slow learner. 

The second objection made to Method 1 naturally applies also to 
Method 2, although not to so great a degree, for this reproduction 
after hearing the passage read is less likely to contain new thoughts 
and extra words than if the passage had not been read at all. 

Method 3. — In utilizing the results of this method, the plan of 
Ebbinghaus Avas followed, the time for relearning being compared 
with the time of the original learning, and the time saved in relearn- 
ing, especially the per cent, of the original time saved, being taken as 



METHODS EMPLOYED 21 

the measure of retention, while the time spent in relearning, ex- 
pressed as a per cent, of the time of the original learning, gives the 
complementary measure of the "amount forgotten." The chief dis- 
advantage to this method is that, in relearning, it is impossible to dis- 
tinguish facility in forming fresh associations from retention of sub- 
liminal associations. Another disadvantage is that it does not get 
directly at the amount and nature of the matter retained by each 
subject. It is thus a serious question if the method is a fair one to 
use in settling the question in hand. For with this method the sub- 
ject is not called upon to give exactly "what he rememhers" at the 
end of three weeks, but is first given the material to relearn, and 
then asked for a reproduction. A factor is thus introduced that is 
difficult of measurement, for this "relearning" may recall more to 
the mind of one subject than another, both of whom might otherwise 
have given equal results by the first method. It may, however, be 
justly contended that this factor is desirable since our problem is one 
dealing with retentiveness and not with ability to recall. 

Another criticism that may be made against Method 3 is this: it 
may be said that it is incorrect to rate two men as having the same 
degree of retentiveness, one of whom takes 25 minutes to learn a pass- 
age and three weeks later takes 5 minutes, while the other takes 10 
minutes and three weeks later takes only 2 minutes. It may be true 
that these figures prove both men to have saved four fifths of the time 
originally spent, and that therefore the amount of the original that 
each has forgotten is one fifth, but this hardly seems fair, when we 
consider that the second man takes 07ily 2 minutes to do his relearn- 
ing as against the 5 minutes needed by the first man. Again it is 
possible that the first man had forgotten the material so completely at 
the end of three weeks, that not only was he unable to recall any of 
it, but he also retained practically none of it, and that the second 
learning was for him practically a memorizing of entirely new mate- 
rial, and that this time he took only 5 minutes because he was in 
exceptionally good condition. In fact when the material used con- 
sists of digits, we would expect the time for relearning to be, on the 
average, nearly as great as the original time.* 

However, taking everything into consideration Method 3 has many 
merits and gives us information that neither Method 1 nor Method 2 
is capable of. It also has the advantage of supplying us with a very 
easy and accurate measurement, namely, time. 

One objection carried by Method 3 is that it takes no allowance for 

4 In several cases the second time was not only equal but even greater. This 
is aseribable either to a poorer mental condition of the subject or to distraction 
of some sort. 



22 EELATION OF QUICKNESS OF LEARNING TO BETENTIVENESS 

the partial relearning that the preceding methods (1 and 2) have 
given. Method 3 is supposed to show,^ besides other things, the actual 
time that is taken for relearning the material. It is obvious, there- 
fore, that before starting Method 3, the subject should not only not 
have thought of the material during the period that has elapsed from 
the day it was originally learned, but he should not be allowed to 
"review" it just previous to starting Method 3. It is just these 
things, however, that methods 1 and 2 do — for in the one, the subject 
endeavors to recall as much of the material as possible, while in the 
other he is allowed a "review." This, however, is not a criticism 
against Method 3, per se, but a criticism against the way in which the 
method was here used. Rectification was made in two ways: either 
(1) a separate and distinct material was used for Method 3, or (2) 
— the time taken for the reading of the passage (in Method 2) wa.s 
added to the time given in column 3. [In some cases the time taken 
for the "attempted reproduction" was also added.] It will be noted, 
however, in those tables where this has been done, that the addition 
of a minute or two throughout column 3, makas practically no differ- 
ence in the final correlation. 

One criticism that might be made of all the methods rather than 
of any one method in particular, is that an investigation of this sub- 
ject, to be thorough, should involve the use of various time intervals. 
For example, instead of merely allowing 10 weeks to elapse between 
the time of initial learning and time of relearning, we should also use 
inter\'als of one day, one week, six months, etc. Proof that the length 
of the time intervals allowed to elapse should be seriously considered 
is seen in the fact that with most groups of subjects the correlation 
of quickness of learning with retentiveness depends partly on the 
length of the time interval. 

The complete solution of a problem of this nature should take into 
consideration all the mental performances of the subject, and should 
involve the use of all the senses, since each one may be said to have 
its own "memories." Limited experiments, such as these herein 
described, can answer the question only in a limited degree. 

Materials Used 

Five main kinds of material were employed on all of the regular 
subjects. Some of these were omitted or abbreviated in the case of 
the insane. 

The chief materials were digits, nonsense-syllables, words, prose 
and poetry. Four sets of each of these were employed. The specifica- 

6 See column 3 of any of the tables. 



METHODS EMPLOYED 23 

tions of the materials chosen, and their method of selection, are de- 
scribed below under their respective headings. 

(a) Digits. — In the regular set of experiments the number of 
digits used was 20. With one group of 16 individuals, series of 40 
were also used. The method of procedure in making the list of digits 
was as follows : 

Small cards, bearing the digits from to 9 inclusive, were placed 
in a box and shaken up. They were then taken out, one at a time, and 
if the digit drawn violated none of the rules given below, it was 
written down as one of the list. In any case before drawing another 
digit, the digit previously drawn was put back in the box and the box 
shaken. 
Rules : 

1. The digits must be drawn by chance. 

2. No digit may be allowed to follow another that is one half as 
much, or twice as much, as the first, e, g., 6 may not follow 3, nor 3 
follow 6. 

3. No digit may follow another that is only one more or one less 
than the digit in question, e. g., 4 may not follow 3 nor 3 follow 4. 

4. No three digits may be allowed to come together that have the 
same difference between them, e. g., 3-5-7. 

5. No two digits may come together that have already appeared 
together in the list. 

6. Since digits, like nonsense-syllables, words, etc., are generally 
learned rhythmically in groups of four, no digit may start a group 
that had previously been used to start a similar group, nor may the 
final digit of a group (of four) be permitted to stand if it has already 
been the final digit of a preceding group (of four), e. g., if 7-1-5-2 
have occurred once as one group, no other group in the same series 
may start with 7 or end with 2. 

(&) Nonsense-syllables. — The diverse results that have been ob- 
tained by different experimenters using nonsense-syllables as mate- 
rial can be partly explained by the difference in the syllables selected, 
i. e., their degree of "nonsensity." The nonsense syllables employed 
by Ebbinghaus should hardly be called by this name as many of them 
are, in German as well as English, practically words. Those used by 
Miiller and Schumann were selected with greater care and are on the 
whole much better. A really good set of nonsense-syllables is ex- 
tremely difficult of formation. My own method of making the series 
of 12 and 20 was as follows : 

Out of a list of 90 nonsense-syllables,^ three competent judges 

6 There are only about 90 fairly good nonsense syllables for English-speaking 
persona. 



24 RELATION OF QUICKNESS OF LEARNING TO EETENTIFENESS 

selected forty-five that to their minds ''carried the fewest objections." 
These forty-five were then placed in a box and, by following certain 
rules similar to those laid down for digits, three sets of 20 were 
selected. Here, as with the digits, if the syllable drawn violated any 
of the following rules, it was thrown back and another selected in its 
place. 

The rules observed in the arrangement of the nonsense-syllables 
were as follows: 

1. Syllables must be drawn by "chance." 

2. Initial consonants may not be the same unless separated by 
two or more syllables. 

3. End consonants may not be the same unless separated by two 
or more syllables. 

4. Vowels may not be the same unless separated by two or more 
syllables. 

5. The initial consonant of one syllable may not be the same as the 
final consonant of the preceding syllable. 

6. There may be no repetition of the same syllable in any one 
series. 

(c) Words. — In the regular experiments only nouns were used. 
These were drawn by chance from 200, previously selected, and ar- 
ranged in lists of 20. Whenever the word drawn, made, with the 
preceding word, an association that was considered "quite obvious" 
by two of the three judges, the word was thrown back. Of the four 
sets of words used, two were formed entirely of words of three letters, 

(d) Prose. — Several passages of different nature and content 
were chosen, as follows : 

1. A passage of 100 words from Kipling's "Kim" starting with 
"The diamond bright dawn." 

2. A passage of 100 words from the preface of Haeckel's "Riddle 
of the Universe," starting with "The present study." 

3. A passage of 100 words from Kant's "Critique," beginning 
with "Time is nothing but the form of the internal sense." 

4. A passage of 100 words from Franklin's "Autobiography," 
beginning with "But I soon found." 

5. Two sets of unconnected sentences, each set comprising in all 
100 words. 

(e) Poetry. — Two selections, each containing four stanzas of four 
lines. 

Methods of Scoring 

The method of scoring the various reproductions of the material 
memorized — a matter of prime importance in an invastigation of this 
nature — will now be considered in detail. 



METHODS EMPLOYED 25 

(a) Digits. — Method 3 needs no comment as to scoring. It is 
obvious that where complete relearning is used, the only measurement 
we have to consider is that of time. In methods 1 and 2, however, we 
must take into consideration the various mistakes, be they of omis- 
sion, insertion of wrong material, or wrong order. In my earliest ex- 
periments, I used the method devised by Ebbinghaus,^ scoring every 
omission as one error, every displacement from the correct position in 
the series by two or three places as 0.5 error, and every displacement 
by four or more places as one error. The subjects were then com- 
pared with respect to their error-score in series of each length sepa- 
rately, I found however, upon correlating the scores thus obtained, 
that my results were practically the same as when using the much 
simpler method used by Dr. Whitley.^ * ' The. chief difficulty, ' ' says 
Whitley, ' ' in comparing people 's work on memory, lies in the varia- 
ble methods of scoring, especially with regard to transpositions. If 
the order is 76431528 and a subject writes 7463 . . ., some experi- 
menters call it two errors because both the 4 and the 6 are in the 
wrong place ; other experimenters call it one error because by making 
one change — by 'lifting' the 6 over the 4, it is corrected. The latter 
method seems preferable. Supposing a subject were to write 
87643152, eight errors would be scored by the first method since each 
numeral is misplaced ; by the latter method only one error is scored, 
since one change would set all right. ' ' Thus a misplacement is rated 
by Whitley practically the same as an omission. For example, a sub- 
ject writing 76-31528, would, by the first method, be scored one error 
for omitting the 4, but two errors if he placed it before the 6. By 
Whitley's method, however, he is, by counting misplacements and 
omissions as equal, scored only one error. This method as used by 
Whitley is the method that was used in scoring the results given in 
the following tables. Each numeral that was given correctly was 
scored 1, and if it was in the right place — either relative or absolute,^ 
it was scored 1 more. This method may at first sight seen crude, but 
many were tried and the more elaborate ones were discarded. 

7 H. Ebbinghaus, ' ' Ueber eine neue Methode zur Priifung geistiger Fahig- 
keiten und ihre Anwendung bei Schulkindern," in Z. P., 1907, 13, 401-457. 

8 "Tests for Individual Differences," Archives of Psychol., 1911, No. 19. 

9 I counted a digit to be correct as to its relative position provided it was 
preceded by the correct digit. My reasons for using the preceding digit instead 
of the following digit in determining correctness of position are given in the fol- 
lowing sub-section entitled ' ' Nonsense Syllables. " If in place of a digit the 
subject merely drew a line thus indicating that he was aware of an omission, he 
was given credit for thus preserving accuracy of position for the digit following. 



26 BEL AT ION OF QUICKNESS OF LEARNING TO BETENTIVENESS 

Examples of the Scoring of Seeies of Digits are Shown Below 

Series studied 5 0947152638047381629 

Eeprod. by subj. A. F... 5 0947-5380473629 

Score 2 2 2 2 2 2122222122 Total 28 

Eeprod. by subj. J. M... 5 09471543680259646129 

Score 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 112 2 112 2 Total 26 

Eeprod. by subj. M. K.. 5094715263807-381629 

Score 222 2 222222221 2 2 2 2 2 2 Total 37 

(i&) Nonsense-syllables. — With nonsense-syllables also, Method 3 
gives no difficulty as far as scoring is concerned, but with Methods 
1 and 2 we encounter the same difficulties that confront us with 
digits, since omissions and misplacements are usually numerous. 
Here also I first tried several of the more elaborate methods includ- 
ing that of Ebbinghaus, but discarded them for one of my own make. 
This method, while easy and quick, proved, upon comparison with the 
results obtained by the more elaborate method, to be fully as accurate. 
Briefly stated the method is as follows : Each correct letter, provided 
the syllable is in the correct positio7i,^° receives a score of 1, and the 
syllable, for being in the correct position, receives an extra score of 1. 
Thus a perfect syllable in the correct position receives a score of 4. 
A syllable correct in itself, but not correct in position, receives a 
score of only 3. If the position is correct, and the syllable has two of 
the three letters correct" it is scored 3. If two of the three letters of 
the syllable are correct but the position of the syllable itself is not 
correct, either relative or absolute, it receives no score at all. There- 
fore, unless position is correct, the separate letters do not count unless 
all are correct.^- It must be remembered that, as before said, if a 
syllable is correct, but is not in the correct position, it gets 3 and only 
3 counts, since each syllable that is in the correct position and also 
correct in itself receives a count of 4. The highest score, therefore, 
obtainable for a list of 20 syllables is 80. 

The subjects were told to draw a line under the last syllable in 
their reproduction if they felt sure that it tvas the last syllable. In 
this way the last syllable, even if it was not preceded by the correct 
syllable, was counted as being in the right position and given a score 
of 4 if it was correct and underlined. It was given a score of 4 since 
it had the correct absolute position. 

10 "Correct position" here, as with di^ts, may mean correct relative posi- 
tion or correct absolute position. A syllable is in the correct relative position 
when it is preceded by the correct syllable, or by a syllable of which two letters 
are correct, provided these letters themselves be in the right order. 

11 Provided these two letters themselves are in the correct order. 

12 When, however, all three letters are written, but not in correct order, e. g., 
the letters reversed, — the syllable receives a score of 1, but if the position also is 
correct, a score of two. 



• METHODS EMPLOYED 27 

The method of scoring is illustrated by the following example. 



,iit of Syllables 
Studied 


Reproduction by 
Subject J. M. 


Scores 


vus 


VUS 


4 


YIF 


VIF 


3 


MIV 


JEP 


3 


JEP 


RIL 




VOB 


BOV 


2 


FEG 


SIR 


. 


WOF 


WOL 


3 


TIB 


TID 


3 


NUZ 






EOF 






JED 






KIB 






VEL 






ZID 






BOL 






SEF 






TAB 






KUV 






TEF 






NAD 







Total score 18 

In explanation of this scoring, the following remarks may be added. 
VUS get 4 counts, being correct in everything. VIF gets only three 
counts, since although its position is correct, it starts with *'V" in- 
stead of "Y." JEP gets 3 counts ; had it been in the correct position 
it would have gotten 4, since, when a syllable is correct as to its 
letters, but in the wrong position it is credited with only 3 counts, — 
one for each letter, RIL receives no score at all, there being no such 
syllable. BOV receives a score of 2, for it contains all the letters that 
occur in VOB and, moreover, is in the correct position, i. e., where 
VOB should be. SIR receives no score at all. It is quite likely a 
pure guess, and put down merely to'secure correctness of position for 
the two following syllables. We are all the more led to believe this 
when we perceive that the next two syllables, WOL and TIB, have, 
in each, two letters correct, — their positions also being correct. 

(c) Words. — With words, method 3 also gives no difficultj^ time 
being the only measurement. With methods 1 and 2. however, a 
method similar to that used with nonsense-syllables was employed. A 
score of 1 was given if the position, whether relative or absolute, 
was correct. Here also correctness of the relative position was deter- 
mined by the preceding word. An extra count was given if any two 
letters^^ were correct, provided that the position of the word was 

13 The same rule was used here as in the ease of the nonsense syllables and the 
two letters themselves had to be in the correct order. 



Reproduction by 
Subject M. K. 

TUB 


Score 
3 
2 


JUG 


2 


EAT 




TAN 




MUG 




CAT 


2 


RUG 


2 


PEN 


2 


BED 


3 


GUN 


3 



28 BELATION OF QUICKNESS OF LEAENING TO BETENTIVENESS 

correct. If the word was wholly correct it received still an extra 
count, making a maximum of 3 counts for each word. 
The scoring is illustrated by the following case : 

Series of Words 
studied 

TUB 

PIN 

HEN 

BED 

LID 

GEM 

BUD 

CAR 

MAT 

ROD 

JUG 

FOG 

LAD 

SOD 

PEN 

CAT 

RAG 

BOX 

NET 

GUN 

Total score 19 

This scoring may be elucidated by the following remarks. The 
first word TUB is given 3 counts, it having two letters correct, it also 
being the correct word and also being in the correct position. HEN 
is given a score of 2, it being the correct word but not in the correct 
position. For like reasons JUG is scored 2. RAT receives no score 
at all, although it has two letters, "-AT," that are correct (they 
being also in the word CAT). The word however is not in the proper 
position either relative or absolute and hence can receive no count at 
all. Words of this kind therefore receive a score of 2 or nothing for 
reasons given in detail under nonsense-syllables. The fairness of this 
rule is made clear when we realize that had the word RAT been pre- 
ceded by the word PEN, the chances of RAT having been a mere 
guess would be greatly lessened. TAN receives no count at all. To 
the next word MUG, one is tempted to give a score of 1 since it con- 
tains the two letters UG which are also contained in JUG. It would 
have received credit for these two letters had the word been preceded 
by ROD. Not being preceded by ROD it is given no count at all. 
That this is perfectly fair is in this particular case very conveniently 
shown by the appearance later on of the word RUG, which, although 
there is no such word, is given a score of 2, it being preceded by the 



METHODS EMPLOYED 29 

correct word CAT. The two letters that are correct in this case are 
B-G and although separated by the wrong vowel " U " they are in the 
proper order. PEN receives a score of two, it having tAvo letters cor- 
rect and also being the correct word itself. BED receives a score of 
3, 1 because it contains two correct letters, 1 because it is the correct 
word itself, and 1 because it is preceded by the correct word. In this 
case the "preceding" word is not wholly correct but it contains two 
correct letters and this naturally gives BED a higher scoring than 
it would have received had it been preceded by the word AXE, for 
example. The last word GUN receives a score of 3, it being in the 
correct absolute position for the reason that it is underlined, this 
proving that the subject knew it was the last word. 

(d) Prose. — The simplest method of scoring the prose passages 
is to grade the papers offhand on a basis of 10 (or 100) equaling per- 
fection. With this method, however, some examiners would not con- 
sider that "perfection" necessarily required the use of the identical 
words occurring in the original, nor might they consider that it re- 
quired a perfectly correct order of these words. With a certain 
amount of justification, they might say that the only thing necessary 
to get a score of 100 would be to have a perfect reproduction of the 
various ideas contained in the original passage, — in other words, a 
practically perfect impression of the "content" of the passage. This 
rather rough method of scoring has been used by several experi- 
menters. I used this method for a time, but soon gave it up for the 
more exact method of Henderson,^* somewhat modified. 

In scoring, Henderson divided his prose passages into "topics," 
"sub-topics," "details," and words. He was thus able to score his 
papers according to the number of "ideas" and "parts of ideas" 
that were retained. We shall first take up his method of scoring the 
smallest of the subdivisions, viz., words, and this is best given in a 
quotation from Henderson himself: "The scoring of words remem- 
bered might easily become a complicated matter. Doubtless, the re- 
producing of certain words means far more power of memory than 
that of others. I have used the following system. All words of the 
original that were reproduced in their former contexts were scored 
full value. Commonplace words, particularly articles, prepositions, 
and conjunctions, were not scored when reproduced out of their con- 
text. On the other hand, an unusual word was regarded as remem- 
bered, even though it appeared in the wrong context. Occasionally 
a word was evidently used because its sound was somewhat like that 
of one in the original. A half credit was here given. Words that 

1* E. N. Henderson, ' ' A Study of Memory for Connected Trains of 
Thought," Psy. Bev. Monog. Supp., No. 23, 1903. 



30 EELATION OF QUICKNESS OF LEARNING TO RETENTIVENESS 

were modified to suit changes in construction, etc., were given partial 
credit also. ' ' 

In defending his method of analyzing a passage into the various 
divisions mentioned, Henderson says:^^ "It must be confessed that 
this analysis has in it something arbitrary. To say that each of the 
detailed thoughts thus indicated is equal in value to every other is 
manifestly absurd. And this is time whether our estimate be based 
on relative importance to the thought in general or on relative diffi- 
culty of recall. But it must be granted that the same objection could 
be raised against any endeavor to compare two mental conditions 
quantitatively. However, as the mind of the subject traveled over 
the thought it was trying to reproduce, it may be conceived to have 
rested momentarily on each of the details indicated. In general, the 
better memories could be expected to retain not only the easily re- 
membered details, but also the ones harder to recall, whereas the 
poorer ones would retain only the former class. In such cases the 
scores given can not be challenged on the ground that the lack of 
equality between the units renders the ranking of the subjects arbi- 
trary. Placing different values on the ideas or analyzing the units 
differently might affect the ranking in cases where the loss of certain 
ideas is pitted against that of different ones, but seldom, I am con- 
fident, could one justify a valuation or an analysis so different from 
mine as to affect materially the ranking of a student. Hence, the 
general results of my investigation are, I conceive, not dependent on 
the peculiarities of my scoring. 

"The scores given have not been diminished, because of errors. 
They are records only of what was retained. I have taken the ground 
that the erroneous idea that contains the suggestion of the true one 
deserves a positive rather than a negative score. It indicates a 
thought corresponding, however inaccurately, to the earlier one. 
Such ideas are given a part of the value of an accurate memory. 
Some individuals, it is true, leave unexpressed the hazy idea that they 
fear is erroneous. They might suffer by comparison with cloudier 
minds that failed to discover the presence of the fog. However, a 
mind that feels a certain idea to be inaccurate is usually able to ex- 
press the part or phase of the thought that is accurate, and thus 
render a true account of what was in the memory. ' ' 

My own method of scoring is really nothing but a modification of 
Henderson's. The papers were first marked on a scale of 100 by 
three competent judges. The average of these marks was then taken 
and called "Judges' Mark." The papers were then scored by Hen- 
derson's method, the score, however, being converted into a scale of 

15 Op. cit., p. 33. 



METHODS EMPLOYED 31 

1-100. This was termed "Henderson's mark." The arithmetical 
ynean of these two "marks" was then taken as the final score. It 
was seldom that the two methods of scoring differed by more than 3. 
In one or two instances the difference was as great as 5, though this 
difference was mostly due to the presence of an introspective post- 
script that had been added by the subject, and which, while it could 
not be considered in Henderson's method, was evidently considered 
by the judges. It was frequently clear that the subject had a fair 
idea of certain "thoughts" that he was unable to express, — thoughts 
that were evidently not expressed in words sufficiently correct to 
obtain, by Henderson's method, as high a score as the judges deemed 
them worthy of, — for in these cases the "Judges' Mark" was inva- 
riably higher than ' ' Henderson 's mark. ' ' 

The results of this method of scoring can be seen in the following 

examples. 

Passage Studied. 

The diamond-bright dawn woke men and cows and bullocks together. Kim 
sat up and yawned, shook himself, and thrilled with delight. This was seeing 
the world in real truth, this was life as he would have it — bustling and shouting, 
the buckling of belts, and beating of bullocks and creaking of wheels, lighting of 
fires and cooking of food, and new sights at every turn of the approving eye. 
The morning mist swept off in a whirl of silver; the parrots shot away to some 
distant river in shrieking green hosts: all the well wheels within earshot were at 
work. 

Eeproduction by Subject A. F. 

The diamond bright dawn woke men and cows and bullocks together. Kim 
awoke, sat up, yawned and shook himself. This was life as it should be, this was 
seeing the world in real truth. The creaking of wheels, the lowing of cattle, the 
clanking of chains, the ringing of bells and new sights at every turn of the ap- 
proving eye. The parrots shot off to some far away river in shrieking green 

hosts; the and all the well wheels of industry were 

at work. 

Score, 72. 

Reproduction by Subject J. M. 

The diamond bright dawn woke men, and cows and bullocks all together. 
Kim sat up and yawned, shook himself, and thrilled with delight. This was see- 
ing life in real truth; this was life as he would have it. The blowing of horns, 
the lowing of cattle, the cracking of whips, and the creaking of wheels. 

(There was also something about parrots flying across the river, . . . and 
that everybody was at work.) 

Score, 49. 

Repeoduction by Subject M. K. 

The diamond bright dawn woke men, and , and bullocks together. Kim 

awoke and sat up. "This was seeing the world in truth, this was life as he 
would have it." The buckling of belts, beating of bullocks and blowing of 



32 BELATION OF QUICKNESS OF LEARNING TO EETENTIVENESS 

horns, the cracking of fire and cooking of food and new sights at every turn of 
the approving eye. 

Score, 50, 

(e) Poetry. — The scoring of the poetry was practically identical 
with the scoring of the prose. Nothing, therefore, need be said unless 
it is that the "judges' mark" was more or less influenced by the qual- 
ity of the rhythm, rhyme, etc. For example, other things being equal, 
a word that rhymed with the appropriate preceding word was given 
preference over one that did not, even though neither of the words ap- 
peared in the original stanza. 

The result of the scoring is seen in the following examples : 

Selection Studied^^ 

And gentle Ellen welcomed her 

With courteous looks and mild: 
Thought she * ' what if her heart should melt, 

And all be reconciled ! ' ' 

The day was scarcely like a day — 

The clouds were black outright: 
And many a night, with half a moon 

I've seen the church more light. 

The wind was wild; against the glass 

The rain did beat and bicker; 
The church-tower swinging over head, 

You scarce could hear the Vicar! 

And then and there the mother knelt, 

And audibly she cried — 
Oh! may a clinging curse consume 

This woman by my side! 

Reproduction by Subject A. F. 

And gentle Ellen welcomed her, 

With tender looks and mild. 
Thought she, "what if her heart should melt 

And all be reconciled. ' ' 

The day was scarcely like a day, 

The clouds were black outright 
And many a night with half a moon 

I've seen the church more bright. 

16 Other selections of prose and poetry, and other lists of digits, words and 
nonsense syllables, used as materials with some groups of subjects, are reproduced 
in the Appendix. 



METHODS EMPLOYED . 33 

The , 



Score, 85. 



The church tower swinging overhead 
You scarce could hear the preacher. 

And then and there the mother knelt, 

and audibly she cried, 
* ' Oh, may a clinging curse consume, 

This woman by my side! " 

Eeproduction by Subject J. M. 

And gentle Ellen welcomed her 
With courteous looks and mild, 

Thot she, what if her heart should 

And all be reconciled. 

The sky was dark, the wind blew wild, 



We scarce could hear the vicar. 
(There was something about a mother praying that another woman be 
cursed.) 

Score, 39. 

Eeproduction by Subject M. K. 

And genter Ellen welcomed her, 
With courteous looks and mild, 
Tho't she what tho her 



Score, 23. 



The day was 

The clouds 

And many a night I seen more 



Classes of Subjects Tested 



1. 40 grammar-school students. Modal age, 14. 

2. 24 trade-school students. Modal age, 16. 

3. 60 high-school students. Modal age, 17. 

4. 24 state reformatory inmates. Modal age, 20. 

5. 132 normal-college students. Modal age, 21. 

6. 32 Columbia College seniors. Modal age, 22. 

7. 14 Barnard College seniors. Modal age, 22. 

8. 24 asylum attendants. Modal age, 25. 

9. 12 workhouse inmates. Modal age, 30. 

10. 24 clerks and business men. Modal age, 30. 

11. 16 graduate students, instructors, and professors. Modal age, 32. 

12. 24 prison inmates. Modal age, 34. 



CHAPTER III 



EESULTS 



The Tables. — To set forth in full the individual records of the 
twelve groups of subjects mentioned on page 33 would require an 
excessive amount of space, and I have accordingly limited the de- 
tailed presentation to two groups, one of 24 normal-college seniors, 
and the other of 17 students in a course in experimental psychology 
in the normal college. These subjects are all young women. Their 
records are given in Tables I.-X., which are self-explanatory, except 
perhaps for the columns numbered 5 and 6, 8 and 9, and 11 and 12. 
These give the average results for the quarters and for the halves of 









TABLE I 














20 


Digits. Normal-College 


Seniors. 


Gebls 


1 

Subject 


2 

Time of 

First 

Learning:, 

Min. 


S 4 5 6 
Method Three 

Time After Percent, of Time 

One Week, SftTed or Amount 

Min. Retained. 


7 8 9 10 11 12 
Method One Method Two 

Score Per Cent. Score Per Cent 


El. W. 


. 2.25 


.66 69 ■ 




33- 




40' 




Ed. W. 


. 3.00 


1.16 61 




34 




39 




H. B .. 
F. Wi. . 


. 4.50 
. 4.56 


1.75 61 
1.25 73 


-61 




34 
9 


-28- 


36 
30 


-35 - 




M. K. 


. 4.66 


.50 89 






37 




40 






G. L. .. 

J. M. . 


. 5.00 
. 6.00 


4.33 13 
2.33 6r 




- 63 


19 
30 ' 




27 
■27 34 = 




-34 


F. K. . 


. 6.00 


3.00 50 






27 




32 






A. H. . 


. 6.16 


2.80 55 






24 




37 


-32^ 




E. W. . 


. 7.00 


2.50 64 


-65. 




26 


-26 . 


30 




C. C. .. 


. 8.00 


2.00 75 




20 




27 




H. M. . 


. 8.25 


1.40 83 




29 




34 




A. N. .. 


. 8.25 


2.33 72' 




23' 




34' 




M. T. . 


. 8.25 


1.16 86 




30 




41 




F. Sc. . 
F. St. . 


. . 8.33 
. 8.66 


3.66 56 
2.50 71 


-70- 




19 
27 


-23- 


31 
34 


-36 - 




B. O. . 


.12.00 


2.66 78 






23 




43 






S. T. .. 
A. T. . 


..13.00 
.15.00 


5.88 55 
9.80 35^ 




- 71 


18 
9' 




31 
■22 23' 




-36 


E. S. .. 


.16.80 


3.50 79 






19 




46 






L. J. . . 
E. R. .. 


..20.16 
.20.16 


2.40 88 
2.00 90 


-72. 




26 
33 


-20. 


40 
47 


-36 . 




E. T. .. 


..21.50 


5.00 77 




8 




22 




J. Mc. . 


..29.00 


11.50 60 




26 




35 




Aver. .. 


..10.26 


2.76 67 






24 




35 







34 



RESULTS 



35 



the groups, when the individuals are arranged, as they are in each 
table, in the order of their quickness of learning the material. Thus, 
in Table I., Colunm 5 informs us that the quickest quarter of the 
group in learning 20 digits saved 61 per cent, in releaming, the 
second quarter 65 per cent., the third quarter 70 per cent., and the 











TABLE II 
















20 Nonsense Syllables. Noemal-College Senioes. 


Girls 


1 

Subject 


2 

Time of 

First 

Learning, 

Min. 


3 4 5 6 
Method Thre« 

Time After Percent, of Time 

One Week, Saved or Amount 

Min. Retained 


7 8 9 
Method One 

Score Per Cent. 


10 11 12 

Method Two 
Score Per Cent 


M. K. . 


..12.00 


4.00 


67^ 




17- 




49- 




El. W. . 


..13.50 


5.25 


61 




22 




51 




Ed. W. 
F. St. . 


..14.00 
..24.25 


7.00 
5.50 


50 
77 


^68 




52 
15 


-26- 




62 
41 


^47- 




A. T. . 


..25.00 


8.00 


68 






11 






31 






H. B. . 
A. H. . 


..26.00 
..26.40 


4.16 
4.50 


84 
83' 




-71 


40 
37' 




-26 


50 
49' 




-44 


F. Wi. . 


..28.00 


2.33 


92 






48 






65 






E. W. . 


..28.00 


7.00 


75 






18 






38 






E. S. . 


..29.56 


15.00 


49 


-75. 




8 


^25, 




17 


- 42. 




F. Sc. . 


..31.00 


10.25 


67 




20 




43 




B. 0. . 


..31.75 


5.50 


83 




19 




38 




A. N. . 


..32.00 


9.16 


71' 




21' 




15' 




M. T... 


..33.50 


13.40 


60 




7 




18 




H. M. . 
F. K. . 


..34.00 
..34.00 


8.80 
6.40 


74 
81 


-67- 




18 
21 


-19- 




40 
30 


■26' 




J. M. . 


..35.50 


15.66 


56 






17 












L. J. . . 

0. C. .. 


..36.08 
..37.00 


15.00 
16.50 


58 
55' 




-68 


29 
12' 




-21 


29 
36' 




-33 


E. K. . 


..40.80 


15.16 


63 






39 






53 






S. T. . . 


..42.00 


13.00 


69 


-69. 




14 






18 






J. Me. . 


..42.00 


12.66 


70 




18 


-23^ 




41 


- 40. 




G. L. .. 


..44.16 


4.50 


90 




46 




52 




E. T. .. 


..45.00 


15.40 


66 




6^ 




38 




Aver. .. 


..31.06 


9.34 


70 ' 






23 ' 






40 







lowest quarter 72 per cent. ; and Column 6 tells us that the upper half 
of the group, in respect to speed of learning, saved 63 per cent, in re- 
leaming, while the lower half saved 71 per cent. 

Table XI. sums up the results of Tables I.-V. in condensed form, 
and Table XII. does the same for Tables VI.-X. The column num- 
bers in these, as also in the following tables, correspond to those in 
the full Tables I.-X. 

It should be understood that the "upper half" and the "lower 
half, ' ' for each material, consist of those individuals who fell into the 
respective halves of the group in the particular material studied. 



36 BELATION OF QUICKNESS OF LEABNING TO EETENTIVENESS 



The upper half does not, therefore, always include exactly the same 
individuals; and the average results, in Tables XI. and following, 
are obtained by combining the results of these various halves, and not 
by segregating the individuals who on the average learned the most 
or the least quickly. 

TABLE III 
20 Words. Noemal-College Seniors. Girls 



1 

Subject 


2 

Time of 

First 

Learning, 

Min. 


3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 
Method Three Method One Method Two 

Time After Percent, of Time 
Ten Weeks, S aved or Amount 

Min. Retained. Score Per Cent. Score Per Cent 


A. H. . 


.. 4.40 


1.00 


77- 




43- 




53" 




H. B. . 


. . 5.00 


4.66 


7 




12 




43 




El. W. . 
G. L. .. 


.. 7.00 
.. 7.66 


3.88 
4.66 


43 
39 


-45- 


35 
11 


-26- 


50 
39 


-44- 




Ed. W. 


. . 9.00 


3.08 


66 




31 




51 






A. N. . 
E. W. . 


. . 9.50 
..10.25 


6.00 
5.00 


37 

51' 




22 
-^0 20= 




28 
■23 52= 




-44 


A. T. . 


..10.40 


6.75 


35 




14 




41 






M. T. . 

E. S. . . 


..11.00 
..11.00 


7.50 
8.75 


32 

21 


-35. 


20 

17 


-20. 


40 
39 


-45. 




B. 0. .. 


..11.25 


6.75 


40 




27 




49 




J. M. . 


..11.50 


8.00 


30 




22 




48' 




P. St. . 


..11.66 


6.88 


41 ' 




26 = 




46 = 




S. T. .. 


..12.00 


4.40 


63 




3 




21 




P. Sc .. 

c. c. . 


..12.16 
..13.00 


4.00 
3.75 


67 

71 


-54- 


22 
32 


-22^ 


40 
49 


-37- 




M. K. . 


..13.25 


3.66 


72 




19 




30 






H. M. . 
P. Wi. 


..13.33 
..13.80 


12.25 
4.16 


8 
70' 




.« -^ 




•- ^3^ 




-35 


J. Mc. . 


..14.00 


7.25 


48 




16 




31 






P. K. . 
E. R. .. 


. 14.33 
..15.00 


4.00 
3.50 


72 
77 


-68. 


16 
40 


.18. 


27 
50 


^33, 




li. J. . 


.16.00 


2.08 


87 




7 




38 




E. T. . 


..28.50 


13.00 


54 




9 




17 




Aver. .. 


..11.88 


5.62 


51 




21 




39 







Tables XIII. and XIV. give the condensed result for each mate- 
rial from two other groups of subjects, whose records are not pre- 
sented individually; while Tables XV. and XVI. present the results 
from all the groups in still greater condensation. The entries in 
Tables XV. and XVI. correspond to the average results from all 
materials combined, as presented at the bottom of Tables XI.-XIV. 

Another way of combining the results from the use of the differ- 
ent materiaLs is illustrated in Table XVII., which again is derived 
from Tables I.-V. The 24 individuals in the group were arranged in 
the order of their success in each test, and were given numbers indi- 



RESULTS 



37 



eating their rank or position in the group. The table gives the rank 
of each individual in each performance, and his average rank in speed 
of learning, in retention as measured by the saving method ("method 
three"), in recall ("method two"), and in recall after partial re- 
learning ("method two"). The average deviation of rank of each 
individual in each of these kinds of performance is also given. 









TABLE IV 














100 Words (The Diamond Bright Dawn) Noemal-College Senior. 






Girls 






2 
Time of 


3 4 5 6 
Method Three 


7 8 9 
Method One 


10 11 12 
Method Two 


First 

Learning, 

Min. 

..10.00 


Time After 

Ten Weeks, 

Min. 

1.33 


Perce 

Saved 
R 

87- 


nt. of Time 
or Amount 
etained. 


Scor 

27 


e Per Cent. 


Score Per Cent. 

981 


..10.40 


2.16 


79 




50 




89 




.13.00 


1.00 


92 




42 




99 




..13.00 


4.40 


66 


-78- 




46 


-66- 




50 


-82- 




.13.75 


4,00 


71 






56 






85 






..14.33 


4.25 


70 






77 






73 






.15.00 


4.66 


69' 




-68 


49' 




-59 


78' 




-80 


. 15.25 


6.00 


61 






14 






68 






.16.08 


4.50 


72 






97 






91 






.17.00 


11.25 


34 


-59^ 




44 


-53. 




72 


-79 J 




.17.00 


5.40 


68 




93 




87 




.17.25 


8.50 


51 




33 




75 




.18.66 


6.50 


65' 




69' 




J 
64" 




.19.50 


10.00 


49 




62 




52 




.22.25 


9.00 


60 




52 




76 




.23.25 


9.50 


59 


1-64" 




45 


^46 


80 


^64' 




.24.25 


5.56 


78 






39 


" 




37 






.25.16 


7.40 


71 






45 






73 






.26.08 


4.00 


85' 




-66 


84 = 




46 


95' 




-67 


.28.00 


15.00 


46 






51 




- 


60 






.29.80 


17.00 


43 






32 






54 






.31.40 


6.56 


79 


-68, 




20 


-47 




89 


■70. 




.34.56 


6.88 


80 




69 


. 




55 




.45.16 


11.75 


74 




76 




67 




.20.84 


6.94 


67 






53 






74 







Subject 
Ed. W. . 
F. Sc. , , 
A. H. ,. 

E. S. ., 
El. W. . 
C. C. ... 
R. W. . . 

F. Wi. . 

F. K. .. 

G. L. ., 
H. B. . , 
J, M. .. 
F. St. . . 
H, M. , , 

A. N. .. 

B. O. .. 
A. T. . . 
M. K. . . 
S. T. ... 
M. T. . . 
L. J. ... 
E. R. ... 
J. Mc, .. 
E. T. ... 
Aver 



Finally, Table XVIII. is derived from the preceding table for a 
purpose which will be explained later. 

Time of Initial Learning.— An. examination of any of the tables 
will reveal the fact that the time of initial learning varies widely with 
the different subjects, and that these differences in learning are more 
marked than the individual differences in releaming. In other 
words, it may be stated as a general rule that with a given number of 
individuals, there will be a greater difference in their time of mem- 
orizing than in their retentive capacity. 



38 RELATION OF QUICKNESS OF LEAENING TO EETENTIVENESS 

Generally speaking, with a group of 20 or 30 subjects, the time 
taken by the quickest learner is to the time taken by the slowest 
learner as 1 : 4. This, however, would seem to depend partly upon the 
nature of the material learned. Among the 24 Albany Normal Col- 
lege seniors (Tables I. to V.) it will be noticed that with digits the 
time of the quickest learner is to the time of the slowest learner as 
1 : 13 ; that with nonsense-syllables the ratio is 1:4; that in the case of 
words the ratio is 1:7; that for prose it is 1 : 5 ; whereas for poetry 









TABLE V 












PoETEY. 100 Words (Gentle Ellen) Noemal-College Seniors. Girls 


1 2 

Time of 
First 
Learning, 
Subject Min. 


3 4 5 6 
Method Three 

Time After Percent, of Time 

Ten Weeks, Saved or Amount 

Min. Ketained. 


7 8 9 10 11 12 
Method One Method Two 

Score Per Cent. Score Per Cent. 


El. W. ... 2.08 


1.00 


52- 




36" 




59- 




H. B. ... 3.00 


1.75 


42 




95 




98 




Ed. W. . . 3.25 
E. W. ... 5.00 


.33 
1.40 


90 

72 


^65' 




64 
30 


-56' 


100 
39 


-72~ 




E. S. ... 7.00 


4.50 


36 






11 




36 






A. H. ... 7.50 

B. 0. ... 8.66 


0.00 
3.88 


100 
56' 




^61 


97 
96' 




100 

'^^ 99' 




-73 


G. L 8.80 


6.16 


30 






28 




50 






A. N. ... 9.50 
P. Sc. ...10.00 


4.40 
2.16 


54 

78 


-57. 




57 
59 


-63. 


55 

87 


■74. 




H. M. ...10.00 


5.25 


48 




77 




82 




P. Wi. ..10.16 


2.25 


78 




60 




71 




S. T. ...10.50 


2.00 


81^ 




10' 




35' 




E. R. ...10.56 


3.80 


64 




78 




92 




M. T. ...10.75 
P. K ...12.25 


5.00 
7.16 


53 

58 


-62- 




51 
73 


-43" 


84 
89 


-65' 




M. K. ...13.40 


5.08 


62 






23 




44 






E. T. ...13.75 
C. C 14.00 


6.33 
3.08 


54 

78^ 




-65 


24^ 
46' 




- %' 




-57 


J. M. ...15.75 


6.25 


60 






36 




47 






J. Me. ...17.00 


5.75 


66 


-68. 




39 


-37. 


42 






P. St. ...17.16 


5.08 


71 




13 


31 


- 49, 




A. T. ...19.75 


5.50 


72 




32 




40 




L. J 20.00 


7.66 


62^ 




53 _ 




68 




Aver. ...10.83 


4.00 


63 






50 




65 







it is 1 : 10. The difference in these ratios is, of course, largely a matter 
of chance. Take, for example, the table for words: here the slowest 
learner takes 28 minutes and 30 seconds, whereas the next slowest 
learner takes only 16 minutes. It is obvious that a much fairer form 
of comparison is that of comparing the average of the first four with 
the average of the last four. Doing this we find that the ratios are as 



RESULTS 



39 



1:3; words 1:3: 



prose 



follows: for digits 1:6; nonsense-syllables 
1:3; poetry 1: 5.^ 

An individual who is a quick learner of one sort of material tends, 
upon the whole, to be a quick learner of other sorts also. This is 
seen most conveniently in the first part of Table XVII., which 
shows the ranks of 24 individuals in quickness of learning five sorts 



TABLE VI 
20 Digits. Class in Experimental Psychology. Girls 



Subject 
B. B. ., 

F. Wo. , 
E. F. .. 
J. S. . . . 
E. C. .. 
I. S. ... 

A. D. .. 

B. C. ... 
El. F. .. 
A. Q. .. 
E. H. . . 
E. H. .. 
M. J. .. 

G. H. .. 
H. A. . . 
R. B. .. 
M. N. . . 
Aver. . . 



Time of 

First 

Learning, 

Min, 

. 3.40 

. 4.50 

. 6.00 

. 6.50 

. 6.50 

. 8.00 

. 8.56 

. 9.00 

. 9.80 

.10.00 

.11.00 

.11.30 

.11.80 

.12.66 

.14.00 

.16.16 

.24.25 

.10.20 



4 5 
Method Three 



Time After 

One Week. 

Min. 

0.75 

4.16 

0.88 

2.75 

1.33 

1.66 

9.66 

1.33 

0.50 

3.25 

2.40 

2.25 

1.33 

4.80 

0.16 

1.66 

6.75 

2.68 



Percent, of Time 

Sayed or Amount 

Retained. 

78- 

57 



58 



58 



-80^ 



82 



81 



7 8 9 

Method 0n« 



Score Per Cent. 
391 



30 



21 



25 



r24j 



^25 



24 



10 11 12 
Method Two 



Score Per Cent. 
391 



33 



27 



34 



30 J 



30 



32 



of material. Some individuals stand consistently high, and some con- 
sistently low. There is, however, a good deal of shifting from one 
material to another, and this shifting finds expression in the coeffi- 
cient of correlation between the ranking in two materials. As com- 
puted by the rank-difference method, the average correlation between 
the speed of learning any two sorts of material is, for this group of 
subjects, +.51. For the 17 subjects whose records are given in 
Tables VI.-X., the average correlation comes out a little lower, 
+ .42. The shifting of an individual's rank from one material to 
another is partly due to the accidental factors inherent in a single 
1 Even when we thus obtain our ratio by comparing the average of the first 
four subjects with the average of the last four, the P.E. is very large. It is :i 
noticeable fact, however, and one of some interest, that with every group of sub- 
jects the greatest difference (ratio) occurs with the digits. 



40 BELATION OF QUICKNESS OF LEARNING TO BETENTIVENESS 

test, and partly, no doubt, to actual differences in the efficiency of the 
individual's powers of memorizing different classes of material. 

Interval ^between Learning and Reproduction. — This interval 
varied in different experiments, as indicated in the several tables. In 
the majority of my experiments the interval that was allowed to 
elapse for digits and nonsense-syllables was either three days or one 







TABLE VII 












12 Nonsense 


Syllables. 


Class in Experimental Psychology. Giels 


1 2 

Time of 

First 
Learning, 
Subject Min. 


3 4 5 6 7 8 9 
Method Three Method One 

Time After Percent, of Time 
One Week, Saved or Amount 

Min. Retained. Score Per Cent. 


10 11 12 
Method Two 

Score Per Cent. 


J. S 6.08 


0.75 


88" 


291 


63" 


E. H. ... 6.75 
B. B. ... 7.50 


1.33 
1.16 


80 
85 


-84" 


- rn 




72 




E. F. ... 9.16 
E. C. ...10.00 


1.66 
2.80 


82. 

72" 




- s: 


-37 


60 J 
48] 


- 55 


G. H. ...11.00 


5.56 


49 


-74_ 


3n37 




40 

68h«J 




El. F. ...11.50 


1.00 


91 


47 ■' 






B. C. ...12.00 


2.16 


82- 


29 J 


45- 


A. D. ...13.66 


5.33 


61] 20" 




31" 


A. Q. ...14.00 


3.08 


78 1731 


32 


'28- 




40 t ,„, 
36 h^ 




M. J. ...14.25 


5.16 


64 


18 








I. S. ...16.00 


1.66 


90 J 


42 J 
■^5 12] 






54 J 




F. Wo. ..17.00 


9.16 


46] 






-23 


19" 




■ 31 


H. A. ...18.50 


4.88 


74 




17 






39 






E. A. ...19.33 


5.50 


72 


■41. 


21 


"18. 




19 


' 23. 




E. B. ...31.00 


12.08 


61 


24 




22 




M. N. ...32.56 


19.25 


40. 


10. 




18. 




Aver 14.72 


4.74 


71 




30 




4. 


42 







week, whereas for words, prose and poetry it was much longer, being 
from three to ten weeks. In an investigation of this nature, where we 
are concerned primarily with acquisition as related to retention, we 
can of course choose any interval we wish. We might wait six months 
and still find a relation between learning and retention. That this 
relation would differ with the interval, however, appears probable 
from certain tests I have made where the longer interval gave a nega- 
tive correlation. I have not studied the matter systematically, and 
the data presented in this paper do not show any clear difference ac- 
cording to the interval employed. In general, we may suppose, the 
difference in amount reproduced by quick and slow learners tends to 
become less, since the amounts retained by all approach zero with time. 



BESULTS 



41 



Amount Retained 

Method 1. — Method 1 has already been described in Section 2 of 
the preceding chapter. It shows the amount that can be reproduced, 
after the lapse of a certain time interval, of the material originally 
memorized, — this reproduction being without a fresh presentation. 
By consulting columns 7, 8, and 9 of any table, it will be noticed that 



Subject 
B. B. 
E. F. 

E. A. 

F. W. 
E. C. 
B. C. 
A. D. 
A. Q. 
J. S. 
I. S, 
M. J. 
H. A. 

G. H. 
El. F. 
E. H. 
M. N. 
E. B. 
Aver. 



TABLE VIII 
20 Words. Class in Experimental Psychology. Girls 



2 

Time of 

First 

Learning, 

Min. 

. 5.80 

. 7.33 

. 7.40 

. 8.00 

. 8.56 

. 9.16 

. 9.16 

.10.08 

.10.08 

.12.00 

.13.16 

.13.50 

.14.50 

. 15.08 

.15.33 

.17.00 

.19.00 

.11.48 



3 4 5 

Method Three 



Time After Percent, of Time 
Ten Weeks, Saved or Amount 
Min. ~ ■ ' 

2.08 

«*l56 



2.66 
2.25 
6.00 
4.50 
4.66 
6.40 
4.80 
1.88 
6.00 
6.33 
7.33 
7.75 
6.40 
4.24 
5.00 
6.08 
4.96 



Retained. 

64-^ 



70 I 
25 J 

4445 

30 r 

52 J 

81 

50 

52 

46 

47 

58 

72 

71 

68 

56 



50 



.571 



.63 J 



61 



7 8 9 

Method One 



Score Per Cent. 

28 



28 ^ 



15 



^21 



231 



19, 



21 



10 11 12 
Method Two 



Score Per Cent. 
53 



47 



■37 



37 



33 J 



42 



35 



in the case of all materials, both meaningless and logical, there ap- 
pears to be a positive correlation between quickness of learning and 
the amount retained. The score obtained by the first half- is in gen- 
eral better than that obtained by the last half. This is most marked 
in the case of prose and least marked with digits. In fact with digits, 
the score obtained by the last half is, in several cases, very nearly as 
high as the first half, and in the case of the high-school students 
(Table XIV.), the score of the last half is even better. In any case, 
however, the difference is small. With nonsense-syllahles, words, and 
poetry the difference is slightly in favor of the quick learners, al- 
though on the whole the difference is but slight. The probable error, 

2 In the following pages we shall by "First half" or "Upper half" here- 
after understand the quickest learners, and by "Last half" or "Lower half" 
the slowest or poorest learners. 



42 BELATION OF QUICKNESS OF LEAENING TO BETENTIVENESS 

however, is in most cases so high that the value of index of correlation 
is considerably lowered. Were it not that what correlation we do 
obtain is positive for every table the figures would have much less 
value. In the case of prose and poetry, a positive correlation is un- 
questionable. "With prose for example, the average score for the 
quickest learners is, as a rule, nearly double the score for the slow 
learners. The use of the Pearson method gives so high an index that 
the evidence is conclusive. 

Method 2. — Concerning Method 2, little need be said, — the indi- 



TABLE IX 

Prose. 100 Words ("The Present Study") Class in Experimental Psy- 
chology. Girls 



Subject 
B. B. . 
E. C. .. 
B. C. .. 
E. F. . 
A. Q. . 
I. S. . . 
H. A. . 
G. H. .. 
M. J. . 
E. H. . 
El. F. . 
M. N. . 
R. B. .. 

E. A. .. 
J. S. .. 

F, Wo. 
A. D. . 
Aver. .. 



Time of 

First 

Learning, 

Min. 

. . 7.00 

..11.16 

..12.25 

..14.33 

..16.08 

..17.50 

..19.00 

..19.33 

..20.00 

..20.40 

..21.56 

..25.25 

..28.16 

..28.40 

..30.00 

..32.66 

..39.50 

..21.33 



3 4 5 

Method Three 



Time After 

Ten Weeks, 

Min. 

2.88 

4.25 

4.88 

4.80 

7.00 

4.33 

3.80 
11.56 

5.88 
10.33 

9.00 
10.56 

8.08 
10.25 
15.00 
10.75 
10.66 

7.88 



Percent, of Time 

Saved or Amount 

Betained. 



621 



62 



63 



59 



66 J 



63 



7 8 9 

Method One 



Score Per Cent. 

57' 



50 



53 



r21 



21 



51 



21 



10 11 12 
Method Two 



Score Per Cent. 
81 




vidual differences being much the same as those observed by Method 
1. With the exception of digits, the quick learners get the higher 
scores. Here again the greatest difference is with the prose and the 
least with the digits. The most noticeable fact with this method is 
that it gives the highest correlation of all, and that the correlation is 
high throughout, i. e., for all materials. The explanation of this is 
not hard to find. It lies in the fact that with Method 2, after the 
lapse of a certain number of days, the material is read once, and only 
once, to the subject, after which reading he is asked to write down as 
much as possible. Obviously, the quick learner will get more from 



BESULTS 



43 



this one reading than the slow learner and thus the index is made 
higher. 

Method 3. — So many factors are involved in this method that it 
calls for a more lengthy discussion than either of the two preceding 
methods. With this method the correlation is as a rule negative, both 
by the Pearson method and by the rather crude ''percentage 



Poetry. 



Subject 
B. B. .. 
F. W. . 
M. J. . 
E. F, . 
E. C. .. 
O. H. . 
E. H. .. 
E. A. . 
A. Q. . 



E. B. . 

A. D. . 
El. F. 

B. 0, . 

J. S. . 
I. S. . 

M. N. 
H. A. 

Aver. . 



TABLE X 

100 Words ("To See a Man"). Class in Experimental Psychol- 
ogy. GntiiS 



Time of 

First 

Learning, 

Min. 

. 5.16 

. 7.00 

. 7.33 

. 8.50 

. 9.56 

.11.25 

.11.50 

.11.80 

.12.00 

.12.16 

.12.16 

. 12.75 

.13.00 

.14.00 

.14.00 

.14.56 

.14.75 

.11.26 



3 4 5 

Method Three 



Time After 

Ten Weeks, 

Min. 

3.56 

2.50 

2.40 

3.50 

4.33 

8.08 

2.66 

5.08 

2.50 

0.00 

6.56 

6.00 

3.50 

0.33 

4.25 

5.25 

5.50 

3.88 



Percent, of Time 

Saved or Amount 

Retained. 

31" 

64 



67 
59 
55 
28 
77 
57 
791 
100 
46 
53 
73-^ 
98 
70 
64 
63 
64 



55 



54 



70 



74 



^55 



^72 



7 8 9 

Method One 



Score Per Cent. 
591 

48157 
68 I 




10 n 12 

Method Two 



Score Per Cent. 
94 




method. "3 With the percentage method we find that the quickest 
learners retain less than the slower learners for digits, words and, 
occasionally poetry. For prose, on the other hand, the quick learners 
retain more, while for nonsense-syllables they stand about even. 
To repeat: Method 3 gives results that by no means invariably 
agree with those obtained by the two preceding methods. This is due 
to the nature of the method, i. e., to the manner of computing the 
"percentage of time saved" and treating this as a measure of the 
amount retained. Whether this is fair to the quick learner is ques- 
tionable. According to Method 3, those who memorize prose most 
quickly retain it better than those who memorize it more slowly; 

3 By this we mean the methods shovFn in columns 4, 5 and 6, where the per- 
centage of the first half of the class (comprising the quickest learners) is com- 
pared with the half of the class comprising the slowest learners. 



44 BEL AT ION OF QUICKNESS OF LEABNING TO BETENTIVENESS 

this, indeed, agrees with the result by the other methods. With 
poetry the same relation often holds good, but the results are not 
uniform, and, as may be seen from Tables XI. and XII., the quick 
learners may, by this computation, forget even more, but in any case 
the difference is not marked. Taking prose and poetry together, how- 
ever, and assuming that they are illustrative of * ' logical " or " mean- 
ingful" material, we may say that the results obtained agree with 

TABLE XI 

24 Normal College Seniors 

1 2 3 6 9 12 

Digits: 

Upper half 5.5 2.0 63 27 34 

Lower half 15.0 4.0 71 22 36 

Nonsense -syllables : 

Upper half 24.1 6.5 71 26 44 

Lower half 38.0 12.1 68 21 36 

Words : 

Upper half 10.0 5.5 40 23 44 

Lower half ^4.8 5.7 61 20 35 

Prose : 

Upper half 14.3 4.8 68 59 80 

Lower half 27.3 9.1 66 46 67 

Poetry : 

'' Upper half 7.0 2.8 61 59 73 

Lower half 14.5 5.2 65 40 57 

Average : 

Upper half 12.2 4.3 61 39 55 

Lower half 21.9 7.2 66 30 46 

The "time interval" here, as in Tables XIL and XIV., is 1 week for the 
digits and nonsense -syllables and 10 weeks for the prose and poetry. In Table 
XIII. the ' ' time interval " is 3 weeks for all materials. 

those obtained by Methods 1 and 2. Taking all three methods into 
consideration, we are entitled to say that with material that is logical 
in character, tJiose who learn quickly remember the longest. 

With digits, however, a material the memorizing of which is so- 
called **rote" memory, we find that the conditions are, so far as 
Method 3 is concerned, reversed, for here it is the quick learners who 
seem to forget the most. With digits the amount forgotten, as ascer- 
tained by Method 3, is always greater for the upper half of the class, 
and not only is this always so, but the difference between the two 
halves of the class is generally marked. This result is not strongly 
contradicted by Methods 1 and 2, according to which the difference 
is slight. At any rate we may say with some degree of certainty that, 
in the main, those who memorize digits slowly are more apt to retain 



BESULTS 45 

them than those who memorize them quickly. This is just the oppo- 
site of the statement made for prose and poetry, and digits being an 
"opposite" form of material, so to speak, one might make the infer- 
ence that those who learn slowly remember long, if the material used 
is such as involves motor associations, but that they forget quickly if 

TABLE XII 
17 Normal College Senioes 

_,..,! 2 3 6 9 12 

Digits : 

Upper half 6.5 2.8 58 25 30 

Lower half 13.5 2.5 81 24 32 

Nonsense-syllables : 

Upper half 9.2 2.0 79 37 55 

Lower half 19.5 7.3 65 23 31 

Words: 

Upper half 8.2 4.2 50 21 42 

Lower half 14.4 5.7 61 21 35 

Prose : 

Upper half 14.6 5.4 62 51 79 

Lower half 27.3 10.0 63 21 49 

Poetry : 

Upper half 9.0 4.0 55 53 79 

Lower half 13.2 3.7 72 50 76 

Average : 

Upper half 9.5 3.7 61 37 57 

Lower half 17.6 5.8 68 28 45 

The difference between Tables XI. and XII. is probably due largely to the 
fact that the "materials" used are not identical. 

In this group of subjects only 12 nonsense-syllables were used. 



the material is logical in character, e. g., prose, and to a somewhat 
less extent, poetry. 

Such a statement, however, is true only in a very rough way. In 
the first place, nonsense-syllaUes, a material that is not only "un- 
meaningful" in character, but that involves the ''memorizing," so to 
speak, of motor associations, seems— so far as Method 3 is concerned— 
to side more with the prose than with digits. On the other hand, 
words, a material that, one W/Ould think necessitated the formation of 
logical associations, partakes (so far as Method 3 is concerned) of the 
nature of digits, for the "upper half" always retains less than the 
"lower half." Just why this should be is difficult to say, and I have 
no satisfactory explanation to offer. 

With prose and poetry our results by all these methods are quite 
uniform. As this material is essentially "logical" in character our 



46 DELATION OF QUICKNESS OF LEARNING TO RETENTIVENESS 

results do not disagree with those obtained by Henderson,* Thorn- 
dike,^ and Pyle,* each of whom found that those who learn quickly 
retain more than those who learn slowly, for the material they used 
was not such as involved the learning of motor associations, as is 
largely the case \\dth digits and, with many individuals, even with 
words. 

Taking all three methods into consideration, however, and aver- 

TABLE XIII 
20 Columbia College Men Students 

1 2 3 6 9 

Digits : 

Upper half 3.5 1.6 4& 18 

Lower half 7.4 2.6 62 18 

Nonsense-syllables : 

Upper half 8.0 3.7 52 22 

Lower half 16.0 7.2 51 20 

Words : 

Upper half 6.9 2.3 66 38 

Lower half 14.5 3.0 79 35 

Prose : 

Upper half 8.5 1.6 80 65 

Lower half 13.8 4.0 72 51 

Poetry : 

Upper half 7.9 1.6 81 73 

Lower half 11.8 3.3 73 63 

Ayerage: 

Upper half 7.0 2.2 66 43 

Lower half 12.7 4.0 67 37 

"Method 2" was not tried with these subjects. 
In this group of subjects only 12 nonsense-syllablea were used. 
The passage of prose was relatively easier than that used in Tables XI. 
and XII. hence the shorter time. 



aging the results we find that, with all materials, excepting digits, 
those who learn quickest forget the least. The contrary result ob- 
tatined with digits should not be considered in any way remarkable or 
contradictory, — the associations formed in memorizing digits being 
quite different from those formed in the momorizing of words and 
nonsense-syllables. Not that logical associations are invariably formed 
in the memorizing of nonsense-syllables, but when associations are 
formed they are of the same type as those formed in the memorizing 
of words. In short, the nonsense-syllable is first converted into a 
word, and the word is then ' * memorized. ' ' *^ 

*"A Study of Memory," Psy. Bev. Monog. Supp., No. 23, 1903. 

5 "Memory for Paired Associates," Psy. Rev., 1908, 15, 122. 

6 "Retention as Eelated to Repetition," Jour, of Ed. Psy., 1911, 2, 311. 



RESULTS 47 

We have already considered the question concerning the degree 
to which the extremes at each end of a series should be considered, and, 
whether or not they should be taken at their face value. The method 
of averaging the two halves of each group, so that the average of the 
first half may be compared with the last half, tends, as we have 
already said, to "tone down" or lower the significance of these ex- 
tremes by immersing them with the remainder of the ''half -class" to 

TABLE XIV 
60 High School Boys and Giels 

1 2 3 6 9 12 

Digits : 

Upper half 6.0 2.6 62 

Lower half 14.1 3.1 74 

Nonsense-syllables : 

Upper half 25.3 8.0 68 

Lower half 38.7 10.9 68 

Words: 

Upper half 9.5 4.8 48 

Lower half 15.0 6.0 60 

Prose: 

Upper half 15.4 5.2 68 

Lower half 26.1 10.1 61 

Poetry: 

Upper half 6.0 3.3 65 

Lower half 13.6 3.7 61 

Ayerage : 

Upper half 12.4 4.8 62 

Lower half 21.5 7.0 65 

which they belong. Arguments may be made both for and against 
this procedure. In the first place it may justly be contended that it 
is these very extremes that are most valuable — and that the compari- 
son of most worth would be that in which the first two or three indi- 
viduals were compared with the last two or three. On the other hand 
it is possible that it is precisely these extremes that are most to be 
suspected of error, and that the chance of error is lessened by talking 
the average or the median of each half of the class. 

Roughly speaking, the Pearson method may be said to do away 
with both of these objections, for, while it takes into consideration the 
actual amounts themselves, it tends to lower the significance of the 
extremes more than does the method of comparing the average of one 
half of the class with the other. 

The Pearson method was used with every group of subjects for 
determining certain of the correlations considered below. It is evi- 
dent that the data given in the tables supply material for the work- 



21 


28 


22 


31 


30 


48 


23 


35 


25 


44 


23 


36 


57 


74 


38 


60 


61 


84 


51 


80 


39 


55 


31 


48 



48 BELATION OF QUICKNESS OF LEAENING TO BETENTIVENESS 

ing out of several correlations. Of these the four most important are : 
(1) Column 2 with 3; (2) Column 2 with 4; (3) Column 2 with 7; 
and (4) Column 2 with 10. 

These four correlations have been worked out for every group of 
subjects. 

Of the four correlations mentioned, the first, Column 2 with 

TABLE XV 

Several Groups 

JfO Grammar School Girls. Modal Age, 14 

1 2 • 3 6 9 12 

Method Three Method One Method Two 

Time of First Per Cent. 

Learning, Time of Re- of Time Score Per Score Per 

Min. learning Saved Cent. Cent. 

Av. upper half 13.2 5.0 60 37 55 

Av. lower half 20.1 6.9 64 28 54 

24 Trade School Boys. Modal Age, 16 

Av. upper half 11.4 4.2 59 35 52 

Av. lower half 19.2 7.3 60 26 41 

60 High School Students. Both Sexes. Modal Age, 17 

Av. upper half 12.4 4.8 62 39 55 

Av. lower half 21.5 7.0 65 31 48 

132 Normal College Women Students. Modal Age, 21 

Av. upper half 11.2 4.0 61 39 56 

Av. lower half 17.8 6.4 65 31 47 

24 Asylum Attendants. Both Sexes. Modal Age, 25 

Av. upper half 14.1 5.2 58 35 52 

Av. lower half 18.3 7.2 62 28 41 

12 Clerics and Business Men. Modal Age, 30 

Av. upper half 12.2 4.4 61 37 49 

Av. lower half 20.0 7.1 67 30 39 

16 Graduate Students and Professors. Men. Modal Age, 32 

Av. upper half 11.1 3.8 61 41 

Av. lower half 16.9 6.1 63 33 

The interval between first learning and relearning was, in the groups included 
in this table, one week for digits and nonsense-syllables, and ten weeks for words, 
prose and poetry. 

Column 3, is, with a few exceptions, positive. The exceptions are not 
confined to any one material though they occur mostly with the digit 
tables. The correlation is fairly high, averaging between .5 and .6. 

The second correlation — Column 2 with Column 4 — belongs to 
Method 3. Here, of course, the correlations tend to correspond to the 
relation shown by the two figures of Column 6 but this is not inva- 



BESULTS 



49 



riable. For example, with Tables I. to V. the correlations are all 
negative with the exception of prose— and here the correlation is so 
low and the P.E. so large that the index obtained is practically of no 
value. In fact nearly all of these "Method 3" correlations are ex- 
tremely low and their only value is to show that, so far as Method 3 is 
concerned, there is practically no correlation between the rapid learn- 
ing and retention. 

The third correlation— Column 2 with Column 7— belongs to 

TABLE XVI 

Several Groups 

24 State Beformatory Inmates. Males. Modal Age, 20 

1 2 3 6 9 12 

Time of First Time of Re- Per Cent. 

Learning, learning, of Time Score Per Score Per 

A , ,„ ™^'^- Mm. Saved Cent. Cent 

Av. upper half 6.2 2.1 68 50 71 

Av. upper half 12.2 3.9 70 43 62 

32 Columbia College Seniors. Men. Modal Age, 22 

Av. upper half 9.1 2.7 68 42 

Av. lower half 12.9 5.0 70 35 

U Barnard College Seniors. Women. Modal Age, 22 

Av. upper half 7.0 2.2 66 40 

Av. lower half H.g 4.5 60 33 

12 WorJchouse Inmates. Men. Modal Age, 26 

Av. upper half 10.3 4.5 68 '40 66 

Av. lower half 16.0 5.4 69 32 54 

24 Prison Inmates. Men. Modal Age, 34 

Av. upper half 9.9 4.1 70 39 

Av. lower half 14.3 5.0 72 37 

_ The interval between the first learning and the relearning was, for the groups 
included m this table, three weeks for all materials. 

Method 1. The correlation is, with the exception of digits, alwavs 
positive, I. e., such as to show a correspondence between quickness of 
learning and retention, when the latter is measured by the amount re- 
called after the interval. It is not, however, a very high correlation, 
seldom going above .4 and averaging only .25. 

The fourth correlation— Column 2 with Column 10— belongs to 
Method 2. Generally speaking the index obtained agrees fairlv eloselv 
with that of Method 1. In view of the fact that the material is read 
once to the subject Method 2 allows a certain amount of relearning 
and .thus approaches Method 3. This is seen in several of the corre- 
lations obtained. 

Even though, as just stated, the general statistical relation between 
speed of learning and retentiveness is very loose, it might still be true 
that there was a class of quick learners who were poor in retention, 



50 RELATION OF QUICKNESS OF LEARNING TO BETENTIVENESS 

Q e*«oc«oo^^oo«ooq'*'*«Doqoq^'*p«Dioe«oqp»oi> 

^ XJ130J r-lt~(MCCI00(MrHOOl0^t--^C5-*C0O00e000r-llOCl?0 

H OJi— li— IfMrH 1—' 1— lOJ t— I CQr-lOa i— I i— li— I 

•a 

S iDIOU CCic«5i-llO-<*<t>-<Mt~<MTtiOOOOa5i-iOi-IOCO(N?Ol005'*l 

2- iaWIl^S <MOooo:)ir:ioomr-(0-<*i«ot^(Mfocsoo5t-(MTt<i-ifOi-iTi< 
« ssaasao^ "-i (m f-iT-n oa i— ii— ii— i i— ii— i (Mcaoi r-ti— i 

o 

^ r-l Cqi-ICQi-iOai-Hr-li-trHr-l OJ r-l l-t<M 

aSOJJ OCIlOrHCOQOMOO-^lCt^CvlOONi— I05'*->#C00>.— I^Ot- 
^^ (M r-lr-li-l T-l r-li-<(Mi-l (Mi-I r-(Ca (Ml-( 

r-t C* rHi-HrHrHi-H tHrHfHi-l C{i-ICNlrHrH i^C<rH 

•S- ^a!(30 J t~C5t-ICOlOCOOOGO«D05fOCfiCCllOOCClt~i-lr(<Cq.-l'*-<*IO 

2 Oai-(i-lt-l r-l .-((M T-i r-l<M<Mr-lr-l r-l<M 

O 

n3 gpjOAV LOrHr-teoco-^iMknt^i-iooQOtOost^as-^-^eofoiMoofM 

O 1-1 r-( .-(i-Hi-l(JCl<Mi— I r-li-l(Mi-l(M i-l(M 

<S aoia.iriLr r-lrH?DCCI0005CClCC10irO-*t-CO-*Oi(Mi-l«OOCOt-ir3kn)'* 

91 aBaaino>{ ^ g^ t-(>-i r-i r-ii-ii-i i-icgrioioQ i-ioq 

jj l^TSia (MOj-*0'«*<t»rH(Ma5ooco«Dooo«oioeoiHi— it^(jq»oeO'^ 

g T— Ir-IOq r-i r-t 0^ i— I i— I i-(i— (OCl O] i— ( i— ICQ 

oa 

f_| 2 MOIJ ,-ir-i(MO«OOOOU:>05«Oli3T-lrHirOt-U3C<l(MC»rftOi-*Ci:i-<i< 

I— 1(« i-l(M i-lrHi-liHiHOqtM (Mr-ll-li-l r-l(M 

>" S 

^ <!£ o<ori<cico^ocoe9etoocoooaoooc4oooqoqeipp>q«]<>at« 

<; g^ rHr-l r-lrHi-liH iHr-lrHf-lT-<<H>HfH>H r-lrH i-lrH>H 

5 AJjaoj Ninii-(fooooooi*OTt<MTt<aii-it-iot><McotDeoi-ioo> 

■g CMrH (MOaOQi— I (Mi— II— I i— I i— (i— Ir-ll— (r-l 

^ spJO^ ooo5(Mcqrt<t^(M«o-*t^'*i<-iioecco;oo5u:iOOi-icoe»5i-i 

"O Wi-1 i-^ 1— IOJ(Mi— i(Mi-li-lr-l I— lOI I— Ir-I 

•3 I^IQ^IlXS C0U:i-<*l^00(MC0rHCD(Mf0i-lt:^0iO»0CC^(M03O«>.i-l<r> 

■5 aSaaSaO^ C<Jr-l (Mi-ICv1 cm r^ i-ir-ii-ir-l(Mr-lr-li-l 

■» r,.,9.^ »OOOit^rOO>'*IO<M^i©t^(MlOi-l<£iCO(M'-tTt<COr-lOOOO 

O BflSICI ,_,(jgr-l 1-1 i-lr-IO]<Mi-(i— li-l r-l (M 01 1-1 

3 

o 

a asoij c<iT}<r-imoc]coi^05'*-*o«oi-ioooit^rHcoociiroco»OQO 

y " r-lr-lr-lr^I-l (MrlMi-IIMr-li-l r-t (MCM 

? aa«jaAv oo«P<M«>^c«^c*oc«oo®«Orj<e»ceTi<ooTj<^o^co»oeo 
•2 ^«dwc5«^t^d^d, 'jirtMr-ii-ic^^i-it-^^i^ocie'i®?^ 

g r-l tH r-ltHrH rHrH iHi-trHi-Hi-lrHCiWCJCil-l 

es 

5 ^iiaO/T coo«oici-ioi'*<Mcoooccioo]r-05i>'Cot»co»o'*'«*i'-ioo 

^ i-l 1-1 rli-i (M(Nr-i (Mr-li-li-lOJl-IIN--l 

« 

S apjOM l0 10r-IOCO«Dt:~Oit-lrt*CM(MCOQ050i-iOOt^'^05fOOJOTj( 

^ i-l T-l i-i i-i<M i-ii-ii—i 1-1 i-iT-i Ca(M(M(M 

S i!,?il^rjll.S cor-(t-ooic!i050ooMcot~-*inco(Mini-(rH-*ooocciTj4 
g aaaaiaojsi ^ ^ „ r-icg r-i i-ir— i-i ccii-ii-i(m<m<m 

ni3ia <Mira050i-ir-OTtioo«oci-5tr~<r>(Mcot^05iooOTt<i-iea-*eo 

'••^ ^ (M ,-,r-l r-lr-lrli-lr-l I-1T-I<M(M<M(M 

990IA i-H(Mco'#in?ot>.ooC50r-i<rqco-'*Loot~ooOiOi-ioaec-* 

" „„^„„^^^^r-i(M(MOJ(MCg 

: • aj • 

H fh' <i '^' S d p^ Ph' P4 d a t^ Fn W <i w «^ S od S h4 P^ "^ p4 <ri -si 



BESUU'S 51 

and a class of slow learners who were good in retention. Such is the 
common belief, no doubt, and such a view is sometimes expressed in 
psychological literature. In attempting to judge of the correctness 
of this view, we must not be misled by chance coincidences. In a 
series of single tests, it is almost certain to happen that an individual 
who learns a certain selection quickly shall be found to retain it 
poorly, or that one who learns it slowly shall be found to retain it 
well. In the absence of a general statistical confirmation of this rela- 
tion, a few such isolated cases have little significance. But if it is 
found, by repeated tests of the same individual, that he regularly 
learns quickly and regularly forgets quickly, then his case is signif- 
icant as showing that individuals do exist who are distinctively quick 
learners and poor retainers. My tests afford some opportunity for 
examining this question, since each individual was tested with five 
different materials. Table XVII., giving the ranks of 24 individuals 



Learning 
Individual Av, Rank A,D. of Rank 
Ed, W 2,8 1.0 

A, H 5.2 2,6 

E, W 7,4 1.7 

A. N 11.2 3.0 

S. T 17.0 2.8 

E. E 20.0 2.4 

J. Me ,22.4 1.3 

E, T 22.6 1.8 

General Av.,,12.5 3.2 

in learning each material, and in recalling and relearning it after an 
interval, affords an opportunity for looking for individuals who are 
consistently quick or slow learners and for finding how well they do 
in retention. Table XVIII. extracts from Table XVII. the records of 
the most consistent individuals. 

Regarding these individuals, it may be noted that : 

Ed. W., while consistently high in learning and recall, occupies a 
medium and rather variable position in relearning, 

A, H, stand high on the average throughout, but is rather variable 
in recall and relearning, 

R, "W, and A, N, are consistently medium throughout. 

S. T, is consistently low in learning and recall, but variable in 
relearning. 

E, R., the most interesting case, is consistently low in learning, 
consistently high in recall, and high, though only moderately con- 
sistent, in relearning. 



TABLE XVIII 








LITIES OP 


THE Most Consistent Ii 


JDIVIDt 


Recall 
(Method 1) 
nk Av. Rank A.D. 
3.2 2.2 


Relearning 

(Method 3) 

Av. Rank A.D. 

10.0 5.2 


4.8 




4.1 


5.4 


5.4 


12.8 




2.1 


11.0 


2.4 


10.2 




1.9 


14.8 


3.4 


21.4 




2.0 


9.8 


7,2 


4.0 




1.6 


7.6 


5,1 


14.6 




1.5 


11.5 


3.3 


22.8 




1.4 


12.4 


4,0 


12.5 




3.5 


12.5 


5.0 



52 BELATION OF QUICKNESS, OF LEARNING TO BETENTIVENESS 

J. Mc, is consistently low in learning, and consistently medium 
in recall and relearning. 

E. T. is consistently low in learning and in recall, and consistently 
medium in relearning. 

There is no one, then, who is consistently high throughout, or who 
is consistently low throughout, though there are two who are con- 
sistently medium throughout. 

On the other hand, no one who is consistently high in learning is 
consistently low in retention. But there is one individual, E, R., who 
is consistently low in learning and consistently high in retention ; and 
another, J, Mc, who is consistently low in learning and consistently 
medium in retention. It is reasonable to suppose that these two per- 
sons, especially the former, overleamed the material on the first 
learning. Through excess of caution, they delayed presenting them- 
selves for the test of learning until they were extra sure of their mate- 
rial. So we may suppose. If so, this moral trait of caution would 
produce the spurious appearance of a connection between slow learn- 
ing and good retention. 

Examination of Tables VI.-X. shows that among the 17 individ- 
uals included there is one who was consistently low in learning and 
rather consistently medium in retention, and one who is consistently 
medium in learning and rather consistently high in retention; but 
none who is consistently high in learning and consistently medium or 
low in retention. 

Of the 41 individuals whose records are here presented in full, 
then, there is no case of an individual who can be definitely classed 
as a quick learner and as a poor retainer. There are several quick 
learners whose average position in retention is considerably lower 
than their position in learning, but the variability of their position, 
as regards retention, makes it impossible to place them definitely. 

Intellectual Standing {Mental Ability.) — A comparison of the 
results given by the various groups of subjects (e. g., hospital attend- 
ants with college students) leads us to suspect that there is a direct 
relation between capacity or ability to learn, and general intelli- 
gence. Most of those who have investigated this matter have arrived 
at the same conclusion. Jacobs,^ for example, states that there is a 
"notable concomitance" between school standing and "span of pre- 
hension." Others, however, Bolton and Ebbinghaus, for example, 
deny that any such correlation exists. Their results, however, were 
derived in large part from examinations of single groups that were 

7 Mind, Vol. 12, 1887. Others who have obtained a positive correlation, 
though not so high as Jacobs, are Binet, Bourdon, Burt, Pohlmann, Smedley, 
Winch and Wessley. 



BESULTS 



63 



fairly homogeneous and not by a comparison of one type of intellect 
tuality with another. 

We can not here go into a detailed examination of all the results 

shown in the tables for the reason that space does not permit giving 

the complete data. But we may say that, to a certain extent, the 

correlation depends upon the material used. It was found that where 

the material is logical in character, especially in the case of prose, 

the college graduates do better than clerks and ofiSce men of the same 

average age, and that these do better than asylum attendants ; that 

college students do better than inmates of reformatories, and that 

Barnard College seniors do better than the female servants of the 

same age. The differences, however, are not marked. Upon taking 

any one form of material, contrary results may obtain. Thus, e. g., 

the businessmen and clerks do slightly better with prose than do 

college students of the same age, while with poetry they do worse. 

With nonsense-syllables the order is very much the same as for prose, 

although here the senior college students do best of all. With 

digits the group of cleric and business men do better than any others 

excepting the classes in experimental psychology. We can not help 

but infer that this is due in a large measure to practise. 

, ■ Such statements as the above, however, are more or less loose for 

the reason that they refer only to groups of subjects. Some of the 

hospital attendants may have been more intelligent than some of the 

college students. More exact results were obtained in classes where 

the general rank in class of each scholar could be ascertained— all 

his studies being taken into consideration. An examination of the 

class records of the 132 normal-college students proved "that the 

students who rank highest in their classes and who can be classed as 

the most intelligent have, as a rule, the best memories."^ With the 

group in question the correlation between memory and standing in 

class was found to be .31. 

Social Standing {Occupation, Environment and Moral Conduct). 
— By social standing we mean not only one's standing in society, from 
a ''worldly point of view," but also from the point of view of the 
sociologist. Other things being equal, we wish to determine if any 
one occupation is more conducive to tenacity of impression than an- 
other. It will be noted that this problem is closely linked with the 
preceding; and as we used as subjects prisoners and reformatory 
inmates, we may say that it also bears on morality. 

The group differences here like those for mental ability differ with 
the materials used. The differences where the total material is con- 
sidered are best seen by consulting and comparing the appropriate 
8 D, O. Lyon, Jour, of Phil., Psych, and Sci. Methods, 1912, 9, 74. 



64 EELATION OF QUICKNESS OF LEARNING TO BETENTIVENESS 

tables. With digits, no correlations of any account were obtainable, 
though here, as before said, the business men and clerks seem to do 
better than any of the others with the exception of the group in ex- 
perimental psychology. The business men are rather slow in learning 
the nonsense-syllofbles and their degree of retention of these is worse 
than any other group with the exception of the grammar-school stu- 
dents. "With words they stand on a par with the high-school students 
but for prose they seem to do slightly better, both for time of initial 
learning and for relative amount forgotten. This is what we should 
expect, since we have found that there is a positive correlation be- 
tween mental ability and memory capacity. With the poetry, how- 
ever, they do not do so well as the high-school students and even drop 
slightly below the grammar-school students. 

The inmates of the reformatories, and to a slightly less extent the 
prison, rank fairly high for digits, and words, so far as quickness of 
learning is concerned. For nonsense-syllables they do not rank so 
high. For prose and poetry they stand very well, ranking even 
higher than the college students. I feel that the explanation of this 
seeming discrepancy lies in the fact that the minds of reformatory 
inmates are very receptive while in confinement. Their life* being for 
the most part a dull monotony, they welcome any novelty and enter 
upon the experiment with considerable zest. This is undoubtedly even 
more true as explaining their high degree of retentiveness for we are 
led to believe from a study of the "introspections" handed in that 
they review the material to themselves as a diversion. The average 
time for the criminal group is probably increased considerably by the 
fact that such groups invariably contain a small percentage of in- 
mates of feeble mental mentality, either bordering on idiocy or afflicted 
with one of the numerous psychoses. 

Age. — Speaking of memory in its broadest sense we may say that 
memory capacity increases with age. This statement is general in the 
extreme in that the rate of increase varies with the material used. 
Generally speaking, it was found that the increase in efficiency with 
age is greater in the case of prose than it is in poetry, and in both of 
these, greater than for either digits or nonsense-syllables. 

Several investigators have performed experiments from which 
they conclude that there is a state of maximal efficiency that comes in 
the "teens." At this period they maintain that the memory is 
stronger than at any other period, whether preceding or following it. 
To me it seems that the materials they have used have been too meager 
to deduce any such general conclusion. For example, Bernstein and 
Bogdanoff find this special "memory period" to occur about the age 
of 15. The only material they used on which they based this conclu- 



BESULTS 55 

sion consisted of geometrical figures. To me it seems that the only 
conclusions one can derive from such an experiment is to say that 
when geometrical figures are presented to various subjects in a cer- 
tain way and then tested for recognition after the lapse of a certain 
interval, the subjects around the age of 15 do on the average better 
than older students and adults. 

With Method 1 I find that high-school students averaging from 
16 to 17 in age retain more of the poetry than do the younger gram- 
mar-school students and the older college students. With prose the 
height of efficiency, as before said, appears much later in life and the 
more abstract and difficult the material the later it appears. This 
would probably have its limit, however, and even with Kant's "Cri- 
tique ' ' men of 50 would undouJ)tedly do better than men of 80. The 
difficulty experienced by the younger children in memorizing a non- 
sense-syllable is undoubtedly ascribed to many causes. Probably the 
chief of these is that nonsense-syllables are uninteresting, and though 
children may have a better retentive capacity than adults, their at- 
tentive capacity is decidedly inferior. 

Sex. — Our object here is to discover if there is any difference in 
retentive capacity between the male sex and the female sex as a whole, 
and in particular if there is any difference between the relation of the 
time of learning to the amount retained in one sex from the other. 

An examination and comparison of my tables (including some not 
here reproduced) shows that as a whole the women and girls do better 
in their initial learning than do the men and boys. Thus, e. g., the 
Barnard College girls memorized the total material in a shorter time 
than did Columbia College men of the same age. For digits, words, 
nonsense-syllables, and poetry, the girls average better than the boys. 
With prose the women do better with the passage starting ' * The dia- 
mond bright dawn, ' ' but the men do better with the passage starting 
' ' The present study of monistic philosophy. ' ' These statements apply 
only to time of first learning. When we come to retentiveness, as as- 
certained by averaging Methods 1, 2, and 3, we find that though the 
girls still hold their superiority over the men in digits, nonsense- 
syllables and poetry, that the men stand equal with them in the case 
of words, while for prose the men even seem to do better. 



CHAPTER IV 

SUMMARY AND EECAPITULATION OF THE MAIN RESULTS 

In the preceding chapters we have endeavored to set forth, more 
or less in detail, the various results obtained from the experiments 
performed. In a few cases conclusions were drawn, but in the main 
they were reserved for the present chapter. 

Any attempt to classify these conclusions in a strict and exact 
manner meets with failure. An analysis of them, however, shows 
that they may be roughly put under two groups : ( 1 ) Those relating 
to methods and modes of experimentation and correlation and that 
partake more of the nature of inferences. (2) Those results that are 
drawn from the experiments described in this paper, be their limita- 
tions and imperfections what they may. The following is a brief re- 
capitulation of the results, conclusions, and inferences of these two 
groups. Several of the following have been drawn from an examina- 
tion of the ' ' introspections. ' ' 

Group 1. — (1) Memory is not a distinct, separate, and concrete 
faculty of the mind, but is complex in the extreme. Experiments 
such as those described in this paper, being limited in character, 
apply but to a small part of mentality — and hence, memory. 

(2) Association and retention are closely related. It is a question 
as to how much we should consider the former in investigating the 
latter. 

(3) The relation of quickness of learning to retentiveness de- 
pends upon the method used of ascertaining this "retentiveness." 
The different methods {v. p. 43) give opposite results, and yet, in one 
sense of the word, one method is as "correct" as another. 

(4) Two people may have equal degrees of retentiveness but very 
unequal degrees of recollection. To test merely the power to recall is 
but to test a certain factor of memory. 

(5) With the same subjects and the same method of experimenta- 
tion, different materials give different results. 

(6) In testing "memory" when taken in the fullest sense of the 
word we should test not only the so-called "rot^" memory, but we 
should also consider the subject's ability to perceive relationships and 
associations, and his ability to memorize them. 

(7) In relearning it is impossible to distinguish a facility of form- 

56 



SUMMARY AND BECAPITULATION OF MAIN BESULTS 57 

ing new associations from a retention of subliminal associations. This 
disadvantage is carried by Method 3. 

(8) "Method 1" has several drawbacks. The chief of these is 
that reproduction without a fresh presentation of the material orig- 
inally learned, reveals only the strongest of the original impressions — 
the so-called "supraliminal associations." 

(9) An examination of over 400 "introspections" would seem to 
show that it does not pay to attempt to multiply the various forms of 
imagery. The quickest learners employ the type, or combination of 
types, to which they are naturally accustomed. 

(10) A factor that must be taken into consideration in investi- 
gating retention is the general attitude of the learner toward his 
work. If he is much interested in the problem in hand, and takes 
great interest in his task, he naturally takes more care and conse- 
quently is able to retain longer than another who has not this same 
feeling of interest. Where there is zeal and desire in learning, there 
follows an earnestness and interest in the work, which will eventually 
result in greater retentiveness. This is particularly noticeable in the 
tests on subjects who are working in psychological laboratories and 
therefore interested in experimental psychology. 

Group 2. — (1) With any given number of individuals, it may be 
stated as a general rule that they will differ more in the time they 
take to memorize than they will in retentive capacity. 

(2) The students who stand highest in their various studies and 
who prove upon examination to be "the most intelligent" have, as a 
rule, the best memories. They not only learn more quickly, but they 
retain better. 

(3) Those who employ logical associations and visual imagery in 
the memorizing of a series of words or nonsense-syllables recall them 
more slowly than do those who memorize in an auditory or motor 
manner. The latter type of subjects recall them easily and quickly 
immediately after the first learning — but forget them just as promptly. 

(4) As a general rule it is best to memorize thoroughly before 
attempting to recall. When in doubt do not waste time, and form 
confusing associations by continuing the attempt, but consult the 
text immediately. 

(5) In general, the women and girls do better in their initial 
learning than do the men and boys. In retentiveness, however, the 
men and boys are on the whole slightly superior, but this is not so 
for every material. 

(6) The quickest learners tend to learn their material more as a 
whole than do the slower learners and this is invariably so with the 
second learning. The quick learner only divides his material into 
parts when he is totally unfamiliar with it. 



58 BELATION OF QUICKNESS OF LEAHNING TO BETENTIVENESS 



(7) The quick learners tend more to employ rhythm in the learn- 
ing of digits, nonsense-syllables, and words, than do the slow learners. 
If the element of rhyme or rhythm enters, it aids the ability to repro- 
duce after learning. Those who learn by means of rhythm can some- 
how or other reproduce better than those who do not employ such 
methods of rhythm. 

(8) The relation of quickness of learning to retentiveness de- 
pends on many factors, the most important of which are method, 
material and interval. 

(9) A change in the interval does not affect different forms of 
material to the same degree. 

(10) As to the relation of quickness of learning to retentiveness 
the most general statement that can be made is that those who learn 
quickly remember longest if the material is logical in character. 
Where the material is "illogical" and is memorized by "motor asso- 
ciations" so to speak, the converse is true. This however, has many 
exceptions, depending upon the method used. The exceptions are 
most notable in the case of nonsense-syllables and words (v. pages 
41 to 46). 

( 11 ) By Method 1 the score obtained by the first half of the class is 
invariably better than that obtained by the second half.^ The differ- 
ence between the first quarter of the class and the last quarter is 
naturally even more marked. The difference is found to be greatest 
in th case of prose and least in that of digits. "With prose we fre- 
quently find that the first quarter of a class of 24 will remember (by 
Method 1) half as much again as the last quarter. 

(12) The experiments on school children show that girls from 
the years of 10 to 24 learn more quickly than boys of the same age. 
The results also show that the number of retained members of any 
series increases from year to year. 

(13) There is a positive correlation between education and mem- 
ory. Inmates of prisons and attendants in state-hospitals do not do 
as well as boys of 15 years of age. Education thus has much the same 
effect upon retentiveness as has age. 

(14) With both nonsense-syllables and words the first syllables of 
a series is retained longer than those in the middle of the series. 

1 Excepting, in the case of two groups of subjects, the digits. 



APPENDIX 

Some of the Materials Used 

The materials most used have been quoted in the text, pp. 22 ff. 
The following materials were used on some groups of subjects. 

List of 20 digits: 6, 1, 5, 8, 2, 7, 5, 3, 9, 4, 7, 2, 5, 9, 3, 
0, 8, 1, 6, 2. 

As presented for study, this list was arranged in a vertical column, 
as were also the lists of nonsense-syllables and of words. 

List of 12 nonsense-syllables : LEV, DUT, NIV, POZ, DIB, FEG, 
ZAD, TOB, KED, BUP, KIF, RUZ. 

List of 20 words: BIRD, RUG, EAR, SLATE, CAP, DOOR, 
BOX, TREE, CORN, AXE, SAIL, HINGE, BUG, SPOOL, DOG, 
BOOK, POST, GUN, BEAN, LAMP. 

Poem 

To see a man tread over graves 

I hold it no good mark; 
'Tis wicked in the sun and moon, 

And bad luck in the dark. 

You see this grave? The Lord he gives, 
The Lord he takes away: 

Sir! the child of my old age 
Lies there as cold as clay. 

Except that grave, you scarce see one 
That was not dug by me ! 

1 'd rather dance upon 'em all 

Than tread upon these three! 

Ay, Sexton ! 'tis a touching tale ! 

You, Sir, are but a lad; 
This month I'm in my seventieth year, 

And still it makes me sad. 

Passage Approximately op 100 Words from E. Mach 

The present study of the monistic philosophy is intended for thoughtful read- 
ers of every condition who are united in an honest search for the truth. An in- 
tensification of this effort of man to attain a knowledge of the truth, is one of 
the most salient features of the nineteenth century. This is easily explained in 
the first place, by the immense progress of science, especially in its most impor- 
tant branch, the history of humanity; it is due in the second place, to the open 
contradiction that has developed during the century between science and the tra- 
ditional ' ' Revelation. ' ' 

59 



60 BELATION OF QUICKNESS OF LEABNING TO BETENTIFENESS 

Passage of 160 Wokds from Kant's "Critique" 

Time is nothing but tlie form of the internal sense, that is, of our 
intuition of ourselves, and of our internal states. Time can not be a 
determination peculiar to external phenomena. It refers neither to 
their shape, nor to their position, etc., it only determines the relation 
of representations in our internal state. And exactly because this 
internal intuition supplies no shape, we try to make good this defi- 
ciency by means of analogies, and represent to ourselves the succession 
of time by a straight line progressing to infinity, in which the mani- 
fold constitutes a series of one dimension only ; and we conclude from 
the properties of this line as to all the properties of time, with one 
exception, i. e., that the parts of the former are simultaneous, those of 
the latter successive. From this it becomes clear, also, that the repre- 
sentation of time is itself an intuition, because all its relations can be 
expressed by means of an external intuition. 

Two Lists of Disconnected Sentences 

1. From the Kingdom of Heaven those angels have come. 

2. This horse ate nothing but oats. 

3. The wise man seizes every opportunity. 

4. Ten years had elapsed and they therefore crowned him. 

5. From my own. experience I know he will never achieve success in that line. 

6. The farce entitled "The Telltale Coo" was written by Hal j ass, an author 
who lived in Venebaft. 

7. The wise man is one who realizes the value of industry. 

8. The laboratories here are so arranged that the room for psychological work 
receives the most sunlight. 

9. The work executed in prisons and reformatories is quite frequently very 
well performed. 

1. Opportunity comes both to the wise man and the fool. 

2. The two wells met and the waters were dammed back. 

3. We can say from Christ 's teachings that God is Love. 

4. I had dreamt that either rain or snow would fall. 

5. Sin begets sorrow, as any knave can tell from experience. 

6. The fairy thought that either son or daughter would suffice. 

7. The school system is but one of our many failures. 

8. A short time ago that nation was rich and prosperous. 

9. From his writings we considered him a man who smoked. 

10. "Waste not, want not" and "Grain in the morning sow." 

As may be noted, the sentences are not only peculiar, but many of 
them are awkward. Many of them come from old Hindu fables, the 
awkward translation being desirable for the experiment in question. 



VITA 

Born in New York, May 17, 1887; prepared for college at Peekskill 
on Hudson and at the Mount Vernon High School 

1904-07, College of Physicians & Surgeons (Columbia Univ. )• 

1907-08, University Scholar in Psychology. 

1908-09, studied in France, Germany and Switzerland. 

1909-10, raining and metallurgical engineer. 

1910-11, University Scholar in Psychology. 

1911-12, University Fellow in Psychology. 

1912-13, Research work at Psychiatrical Institute, Wards Island, 
and at the Kings Park Hospital for the Insane, Long Island. 

1913-14, post-graduate student at the University of Vienna, taking 
courses in Psychology, Psychiatric Neurology, Anatomy, and 
Surgery. 

1914-15, Surgeon at the American Ambulance, Paris, in the Franco- 
German War. 

1915-17, voyaging in Africa combined with study of tropical dis- 
eases, native life, etc. 

Received degree of M. A. (Columbia University) in 1908; M, D. 
(N. Y. H. Med. Coll. & Flower Hospital), 1912. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



019 820 147 9 ^ 



